Amarjeet Gill

In response to a question from Steeve Lavoie

“I support anything that helps Canadians. Parents should be the ones making decisions for their children, but they cannot protect them from online algorithms and technologies they cannot control. The government needs to help parents, not replace them.”

“Madam Speaker, multiple times, I have said that the Conservative Party and I will support anything that is going to help Canadians. This is what we have shown in Parliament as well. The problem I am seeing right now is that parental rights and government responsibility are two different things. To answer the member’s question, parents must remain the primary decision-makers for their children, but how can they protect their children from algorithms they cannot see and technologies they cannot control? The government must support parents, not replace them.”

In response to a question from Michelle Rempel Garner

“Parliament needs to ask tough questions about big tech companies. These companies use their platforms to make huge profits, so they should also use their resources to keep children safe. We must make sure kids are properly protected online.”

“Madam Speaker, my colleague’s questions are wonderful, because that is exactly what Parliament must examine. Technology companies have enormous resources. They control algorithms, platforms and user data, but are they investing enough in protecting children? If big tech companies can design algorithms to maximize profit, should they not be expected to design safeguards that prioritize children’s safety? That is the question Canadians deserve to have answered. That is what we have to provide to all Canadian families and all children so we can better protect our children in the future.”

• 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 →

In response to a question from Rechie Valdez

“We need to study these proposals very carefully. Every child matters, and we must pass laws that protect Canadians and hold criminals accountable.”

“Madam Speaker, as I said in my speech, these are the concerns we need to consider very carefully, and we need to consider a full examination of the things we are going to put forward, because we know and understand that every child matters. It is very important for us, as Canadians and as parliamentarians, to bring forward laws that are going to help Canadians and to hold people accountable for such crimes.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 47 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Children face real dangers online, including bullying and sexual abuse. I want to protect kids, but we need to study this bill carefully first. We do not know how it will check users' ages, how it will protect private data, or how it will keep watch over government regulators. Parents must still have the main say in raising their kids.”

“Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise today on behalf of the people of Brampton West to speak to Bill C-34, the safe social media act. We all know that our children are our future. They are our greatest responsibility. They are counting on us to guide them, protect them and give them the tools to succeed, not just in our classrooms or in our communities, but in the digital world as well. Protecting our children online is not optional; it is our responsibility. As Conservatives, we believe that protecting children and respecting fundamental freedoms must go hand in hand. That is why Bill C-34 deserves serious, thoughtful examination, not political slogans or another layer of bureaucracy, but real answers, real accountability and, most importantly, real protection for Canadian children. Let me ask a simple question: Who is protecting our children when they go online? Is it parents? Is it technology companies? Is it the government? Are we leaving our children to navigate a digital world that even adults struggle to understand? These are the questions being asked by families in Brampton West and across Canada, as well as by teachers in our schools and grandparents worried about their grandchildren. Their concerns are legitimate because families want their children to grow up safe, healthy and confident. Today, as we debate Bill C-34, I believe we must keep one principle at the centre of our discussion: Children deserve protection, parents deserve a meaningful voice and powerful technology companies must answer serious questions about the safety of their platforms. The evidence of the dangers our children face online raises serious concerns. According to Statistics Canada, approximately one in four Canadian youth aged 12 to 17 has experienced cyber-bullying. In 2024, police reported 16,905 incidents of online child sexual exploitation. That represents an increase of 347% compared to 2014. Behind every statistic is a child: a son, a daughter or a student. Behind many of these children are parents who are worried, overwhelmed and searching for answers. Technology has changed and childhood has changed, but our responsibility to protect children remains intact. We all recognize the benefits of technology. It supports education. It creates opportunity. It allows young Canadians to learn, innovate and succeed. However, what happens when the same technology becomes a source of exploitation, intimidation or emotional harm? What happens when a child becomes the target of cyber-bullying? What happens when an AI chatbot encourages harmful behaviour instead of directing a child toward help? Who takes responsibility when something goes terribly wrong? Canadians remember the heartbreaking story of Amanda Todd, a young life lost after experiences of sextortion and cyber-bullying. Her story reminds us that what happens online can have devastating consequences in the real world. We owe it to children like Amanda to ask difficult questions and demand meaningful answers. There is another serious concern: the way these digital platforms are designed. Autoplay videos, constant notifications and algorithms that recommend more and more content are features designed to keep users engaged, but are they designed with children’s well-being in mind? When a teenager watches one troubling video, should an algorithm be allowed to recommend dozens more? When a child is struggling emotionally, should a platform prioritize engagement over safety? When companies have the technology to identify dangerous patterns, what responsibility should they have to intervene? Should the safety of children ever come second to corporate profits? These are questions Parliament must examine, and big tech companies must be prepared to answer them. I also want to speak directly about parents. Parents are doing their best. They set rules, monitor devices and encourage responsible behaviour, but parents are facing a digital environment that changes almost every day, with new applications, new algorithms and new AI systems. How can a parent control an algorithm they cannot see? How can a parent stop a stranger from contacting their child through a platform they do not operate? How can parents protect their children when companies control the technology, the data and the design? Parents should never be left fighting billion-dollar technology companies on their own, but neither should government replace parents as the primary decision-makers for their children. This is an important distinction. A recent survey found that 75% of Canadians support banning social media for children under age 16, yet 72% believe that parents should hold primary responsibility for regulating their children’s social media use. What does that tell us? Canadians want stronger safeguards, but they also want parental authority respected. They want government to establish reasonable protections. They want technology companies to be held accountable. The question is whether Bill C-34 would provide the right mechanisms to deliver on Canadians’ demands. For example, the bill proposes age verification or age examination requirements, but how would those systems work? Would Canadians be required to upload government-issued ID? Would companies collect sensitive biometric information? Who would store the information, and where? Who would have access to it, and what would happen if that information is stolen? There is also the question of effectiveness. Bill C-34 proposes restrictions on social media accounts for children under the age of 16, but what would happen if teenagers find ways around those restrictions? What would happen if they use VPNs? What would happen if they move to smaller, less regulated platforms? Could well-intentioned restrictions unintentionally push vulnerable children toward more dangerous environments? How would the government measure success? Would success means fewer accounts or fewer children being bullied, exploited and harmed? We must also examine the role of AI. AI chatbots are becoming part of everyday life. Young people use them for homework, for information and sometimes for personal advice, but what safeguards exist when a vulnerable child turns to a chatbot during an emotional crisis? How would companies identify risk? How quickly would they have to respond? How would Parliament ensure that these protections keep pace with rapidly changing technology? These questions deserve clear answers. Another issue is government accountability. Bill C-34 proposes a digital safety commission with significant regulatory and enforcement powers. How would its powers be limited? Who would oversee its decisions? What safeguards would prevent regulatory overreach? What opportunities would Canadians have to challenge decisions? How would Parliament ensure that unelected regulators remain accountable to the people? Effective legislation requires clear rules, clear responsibilities and meaningful oversight. As we examine Bill C-34, I want to leave the House with a few final questions. Would we be putting the safety and well-being of children at the centre of our decisions? Would we be giving parents a meaningful role and practical tools to protect their families? Would we be asking the right questions of powerful technology companies about the risks created by their platforms? Would we be protecting the privacy, rights and freedoms of Canadians while addressing genuine online dangers? Last, would these measures being considered actually make children safer? These questions deserve careful study. They deserve evidence. They deserve input from parents, educators, experts and young people. Let me conclude with this. Our children deserve more than promises, and Canadians deserve more than another government announcement. They deserve answers, accountability and results. Our responsibility is clear: Our children deserve safety, and our parents deserve a voice. It is time to protect our children, empower our parents, hold big tech accountable and respect Canadians’ freedoms.”

In response to a question from William Stevenson

“I agree that we need permanent solutions to lower costs for Canadians, not just temporary ones. The government needs to cut the carbon tax, lower business taxes, and cut red tape. This will help people afford homes and food.”

“Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague. We are looking for a permanent solution for the problems that have been created in the last 11 years of Liberal government rule. We need to provide a better relief structure to Canadians and eliminate the industrial carbon tax, eliminate unnecessary taxes on business, cut red tape, do the needful things that help Canadians and bring Canada and Canadians to a point where they can live with good affordability, they can buy a house and they can have meat at the food table every single day.”

In response to a question from Greg Fergus

“I support any help for Canadians, but this bill only gives temporary relief. The government is only doing this because Conservatives pushed for it. We will keep fighting to remove all fuel taxes permanently.”

“Mr. Speaker, if the member had listened to my speech, I encouraged every measure as welcome. Every measure that helps Canadians, Canadian families, Canadian workers or Canadian business is welcome. We Conservatives believe this bill is a half measure that would not give Canadian families and businesses the long-term relief they need. Only after months of Conservative pressure is the government now extending this temporary measure. We will continue to pressure the government until it gives Canadians real long-term relief and takes all the taxes off fuel. One thing I would like to say is that we will welcome any ideas, and if they are willing to accept our ideas, they are also more than welcome to accept them to make—”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I support this bill to keep pausing the fuel tax, but it does not go far enough. High gas prices make food, housing, and everyday life cost more. The government should cut this tax permanently instead of bringing it back later.”

“Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak, on behalf of the great people of Brampton West, to Bill C-38, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, also known as the Canadian fuel affordability act, and the impact of high prices on Canadian businesses and families. After visiting and talking to the residents of Brampton West this summer, I can say that this is an incredibly important issue affecting Canadians. For months, Conservatives have delivered a simple message: Stop raising costs, cut taxes, lower the cost of fuel and let Canadians keep more of the money they earn. Now, after months of Conservative pressure, the government would be extending the fuel tax relief. That is good news for Canadians, but let us be clear. This would not be permanent tax relief. It would be a temporary extension. The tax is still scheduled to come back, and Canadians deserve better than a temporary break from high prices. Conservatives have been fighting for lower fuel taxes because we understand something the government has been slow to recognize: Fuel taxes do not stop at the gas pump. They travel through the entire economy. When it costs more for fuel, it costs more to produce our food, build our homes and supply our businesses, and eventually we all end up paying higher prices. The government itself now acknowledges that the fuel tax relief benefits truckers. It also benefits agriculture, construction and housing. Conservatives agree. In fact, we have been making the argument for years. That is why we fought against higher fuel prices. That is why we demanded relief. That is why the government should go further. If lower fuel taxes help Canadians today, why bring those back tomorrow? That is the question the government needs to answer. Under the current plan, the regular federal excise tax is 10¢ per litre on gasoline and four cents per litre on diesel. The suspension would be extended through January. Then the tax would come back again at half the regular rate in February and March, and the full rate is scheduled to return in April 2027. Let us think about that. Canadians would get relief today, but the government has scheduled the tax to come back. That is not a long-term affordability plan. Conservatives believe that Canadians need long-lasting relief because the affordability crisis will not disappear in February. The grocery bills and mortgage payments will not disappear in February. The family that needs its vehicle to get to work will need gasoline in February and beyond. Why should the tax break disappear? I represent the wonderful riding of Brampton West. This issue is very real for the people I represent. Brampton is a working city. It is a trucking, manufacturing and small business city. Every morning, people get up early, get into their car or truck and go to work. They are not driving because it is a luxury. They are driving because they have a business to run, a construction site to reach or children to take to school. These Canadians work hard. Increasingly, they feel like the government is taking more, while their paycheques buy less. They see it at the grocery store, in their housing costs and every time they fill their tank. That is why Conservatives have been demanding affordability measures that put money in people’s pockets. Canadians do not need more bureaucracy or another complicated program. Canada is competing for jobs. We are competing for investments. We are competing for manufacturing. Communities such as Brampton know what happens when those jobs leave. Recently, Brampton has experienced the devastating uncertainty surrounding the Stellantis assembly plant. Thousands of workers and their families have been affected. Those workers do not need more speeches about competitiveness. They need Canada to become competitive, affordable, and a land of opportunity. That means lowering the cost of doing business, and it means encouraging businesses to hire here. Conservatives believe Canada should compete by making our economy stronger with lower taxes, faster approvals, more investments, more productions and more Canadian jobs. We should make Canada the best place in the world to invest, build and hire, because every investment represents something more important than a government announcement. It represents a paycheque. It represents a worker. It represents a family. The government estimates that extending the fuel tax suspension would provide billions of dollars in additional relief. That is good, but it raises another question: If keeping that money in the economy helps Canadians now, why should the government be in such a hurry to take it back? Conservatives believe that the money Canadians earn belongs to Canadians. The government must justify taking it. Families know where their money is needed. Maybe it is a mortgage, groceries, the hydro bill, hockey registration or keeping a small business alive. Canadians do not need government telling them how to spend every additional dollar. Conservatives also understand who ultimately carries the burden when government raises the costs. It is the trucker leaving Brampton before sunrise, the contractor trying to keep a project on budget, the small business owners wondering whether there will be enough left at the end of the month, and the parents sitting at their kitchen table deciding which bills get paid first. Government policy should make their life easier, not harder. Conservatives will support meaningful tax relief. We will support measures that make life more affordable. However, we will also continue pushing the government to go further, because one temporary tax measure cannot undo years of rising costs. Canada needs an economic plan based on growth that rewards work, investment and entrepreneurship. We need to build homes, infrastructure and energy projects that create jobs, and we need to bring down the cost of doing business. That is how Canada becomes competitive, that is how wages grow, that is how opportunities are created and that is how we give young Canadians the hope that working hard will get them ahead. Bill C-38 presents the government with an opportunity. It can acknowledge what Conservatives have been saying: Canadians are overtaxed, families need relief, businesses need lower taxes and our economy needs to become more competitive. Therefore, extend the relief, make affordability the priority, keep fuel prices down, lower taxes on work and investment, get Canadian projects built, bring investment back to Canada, protect Canadian manufacturing and create powerful paycheques for Canadian workers. Conservatives believe in the Canadian worker. We believe in our farmers, our truckers, our tradespeople and our entrepreneurs. We believe that Canadians should be rewarded for working hard, so our message with respect to Bill C-38 is simple: Any relief is welcome, but temporary relief is not enough. Keep taxes down, bring costs down, make Canada competitive, protect Canadians’ jobs and let Canadians keep more of what they earn, because Canadians do not need another band-aid solution. They need everlasting affordability. They need good jobs, better opportunity and an economy where hard work pays again. A government cannot run from a fundamental responsibility to protect and help citizens. Canadians deserve safety, security and affordability. That is what families in Brampton West and across Canada are asking for, and that is what Conservatives will continue fighting for.”

“This bill has some good parts, but it is too weak. The government rejected our changes to add strict, mandatory prison time for extortion and severe sexual violence. We need stronger punishments to protect victims and keep dangerous criminals in jail.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise in the chamber on behalf of the great people of Brampton West. I rise today to speak to Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, an act to amend certain acts in relation to criminal and correctional matters. As my constituents’ member of Parliament, I have a responsibility to listen, to bring their concerns to the House and to fight for safer communities. When I speak with residents in Brampton West, one issue comes up again and again: extortion. Not once in a while but every single week, business owners come to my office, families send emails, and community leaders call. They are afraid and feel threatened. Extortion is up 330% across Canada, and it has become a national crisis. Criminals are targeting hard-working families and small businesses. Homes and businesses are being shot at, and threatening videos are being sent, demanding money. Families are living in fear. Some people have even left Canada because they no longer feel safe. Think about that. People came here to build a better life, but instead they are being terrorized by criminals. Recently, Peel Regional Police arrested 17 individuals connected to a major extortion network targeting South Asian businesses throughout Peel Region. I commend the officers involved. Their work was outstanding. The investigation revealed a coordinated campaign of intimidation, violence, threats, arson attempts and shootings. There were more than two dozen shootings, hundreds of rounds were fired, and businesses were attacked simply because owners refused to pay criminals. However, those arrests are only one step. The problem and threat remain. Gangs are now sending letters to police, boasting that they have thousands of extortionists ready to commit crimes. That should alarm every member of the House. Criminal organizations are becoming bolder, more organized and more violent, and Canadians are paying the price. This is exactly why Conservatives proposed amendments to strengthen the bill. We wanted stronger consequences, greater protection for victims and to send a message that extortion will not be tolerated in Canada. One amendment would have extended mandatory minimum penalties for extortion committed with a firearm. Another would have ensured that extortion-related mandatory minimums could not be weakened through the Liberal safety valve provisions. The Liberals have voted down all these community safety amendments. They were reasonable amendments that reflected the reality that extortion today often involves guns. Criminals fire bullets into homes and businesses, record it, then send the videos to victims and post the videos online. They use fear as a weapon, yet Liberal members rejected our proposals. When Conservatives tried to strengthen penalties against violent extortionists, Liberals said no. When Conservatives tried to stand with victims, Liberals voted no. That is disappointing because Parliament created mandatory minimum penalties for a reason: to clearly denounce the most serious crimes, establish consequences, protect society and provide certainty in sentencing. Canadians understand that principle. When someone commits murder or kidnaps another person, there are consequences. When someone commits sexual assault, there must be consequences. Let us discuss another major concern with Bill C-16. Conservatives proposed amendments to protect mandatory minimum penalties for some of the most horrific sexual offences in the Criminal Code. One amendment would have preserved mandatory minimum penalties for sexual assault involving a weapon, and particularly in cases involving firearms and involving children. These are not minor offences, and they are not mistakes. They are among the most serious crimes imaginable. When someone sexually assaults a child while using a weapon, society has a duty to respond firmly. The rights of victims matter, and the safety of children matters, yet the Liberals rejected that amendment. Conservatives also proposed protecting mandatory minimum penalties for aggravated sexual assault. These are the worst cases. Cases involving severe violence and devastating harms permanently change the lives of victims. Canadians expect Parliament to speak clearly when it comes to these crimes. They expect us to stand with victims and denounce offenders. Instead, the government voted against those amendments. That sends the wrong message, especially in a bill that claims to strengthen protection for victims. If we truly support victims, we must ensure meaningful consequences for the worst offenders. Words alone are not enough. Victims deserve action. Another important amendment came from my Conservative colleagues at committee, an amendment dealing with reasonable hypotheticals. The principle was simple: The court should focus on facts, not on speculation or hypothetical possibilities. The justice system must rely on facts, evidence and reality. Justice must be based on what actually happened, not on the circumstances that may never occur, yet Bill C-16 would continue to allow courts to consider reasonably foreseeable circumstances. That language is vague. It is subjective and invites inconsistency. Two offenders could commit the same crime under the same circumstances but receive different outcomes because of speculation that undermines confidence, fairness and public trust. Canadians expect equal justice. They expect sentencing decisions based on evidence, not imagination. Conservatives proposed an amendment that would have restored clarity. It would have ensured that courts focus on the actual circumstances of the offender, the actual facts before them, nothing more and nothing less. Again, the Liberals rejected the amendment. That is unfortunate. People must believe that similar crimes receive similar consequences. That principle should not be controversial; it should be common sense. I want to be fair, so let me say that Bill C-16 is not entirely without merit. There are provisions that Conservatives support. Making the justice system more responsive to victims is positive. Reducing unnecessary delays is positive. Addressing coercive and controlling behaviour is positive. Addressing harmful deepfake images is positive. Those measures have value, but good measures alone do not make a complete bill. A justice bill must also prioritize accountability, protect victims, deter crime and ensure that serious offenders face consequences. That is where Bill C-16 falls short. The government had opportunities to improve it by strengthening protections against extortion and sexual violence, by improving consistency in sentencing, and by restoring public confidence. Those opportunities were presented at committee. Conservatives brought forward constructive, practical and reasonable amendments, yet the Liberal government used its majority to reject them. That is disappointing. Canadians are increasingly concerned about crime. They see violence rising and repeat offenders returning to the streets. They want Parliament to act. They want laws that put public safety first and support victims. They want laws that ensure that jail means jail for the worst offenders. Conservatives will continue fighting for those principles. We will continue fighting organized crime and extortion, and we will work to restore confidence in Canada’s justice system. Canadians deserves safe communities. They deserve a justice system that puts victims first. Conservatives stand with victims and law-abiding Canadians. Conservatives stand with the families who simply want to live in peace. Conservatives will continue fighting to ensure that Canada’s justice system puts victims first, protects our communities and keeps dangerous criminals exactly where they belong: behind bars.”