Connie Cody

In response to a question from Steeve Lavoie

“Parents cannot take on giant tech companies by themselves. They cannot control the computer systems that push harmful content to their kids. The government must make these companies take responsibility. I want to make sure this bill gives parents real, useful tools, not just rules that look good on paper.”

“Mr. Speaker, parents cannot take on some of the largest technology companies in the world by themselves. Parents can set boundaries, talk with their children and monitor device use, but they cannot control recommendation algorithms, platform design or how harmful content is promoted. Platforms must be accountable for the risks they create, and government has an important role to play. My concern is simply ensuring that Bill C-34 gives parents meaningful support and meaningful tools, rather than creating systems that are more effective on paper than in practice.”

• 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 Kent MacDonald

“Online harms, scams, and extortion are getting worse, and I feel for the parents dealing with them. We need to study this bill in committee. As technology grows, we must look at the whole picture to protect children and families.”

“Mr. Speaker, I completely sympathize with parents who have gone through things like coercion, extortion, and online harms and scams. We are seeing this happen and it is escalating. It is something that needs to be discussed at committee. We need to find a way to protect not only our children but families. As technology is growing, we need to move in a way that looks at everything.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I want to send this bill to a committee so we can fix its weak points. I want to protect children from big tech companies. But right now, this bill has too many holes. Kids can easily get around age checks or use other apps, and their private data could be stolen. Too many important choices are being left for later. We need to study this bill carefully and fix it before we pass it.”

“Mr. Speaker, no security system is judged by its strongest lock, but instead by how easily someone gets through its weakest point. The same idea applies to Bill C-34. We need to discuss whether its proposed measures for a safer Internet would actually work when children and platforms test them. I share the goal of the bill before us. The most important thing is to protect our children. Parents cannot take on some of the largest technology companies in the world by themselves. Parliament has a responsibility to ensure those companies are held accountable for the risks their products create for children and families. However, good intentions alone are not enough. The question before us is whether the mechanisms in the bill would deliver the protections families are expecting. I have heard from so many parents in Cambridge and North Dumfries who are being asked to protect their children against some of the most sophisticated companies on earth. They want peace of mind. They want to ensure privacy and security for their kids. Most of all, they want them to be safe, but we have to ask: Will the law promising these things actually work when it meets a 14-year-old with a phone or a trillion-dollar, multinational social media giant? Parliament is being asked to approve the framework today, while many of the important details that would actually protect our children are to be determined later. Under Bill C-34, regulated social media platforms would have to stop children under 16 from holding accounts, but a platform can apply to the new commission for an exemption by showing it has adequate safeguards. What constitutes adequate? Parliament does not know, because that standard has not yet been established. The bill does not name a single platform. Whether it covers TikTok, Snapchat, YouTube, Roblox or Discord will be decided by cabinet after Parliament has voted. Law professor Michael Geist counted 50 key decisions in the bill left to cabinet and a commission that does not yet exist. That makes careful scrutiny of the bill even more important. There are other lessons from around the world we could take to inform our conversation here today. For instance, Australia’s under-16 ban took effect on December 10, 2025, across 10 major platforms. Four months in, surveys found many Australian children who had accounts before the ban still retained access. Most of those who stayed reported that getting around the restrictions was easy. A larger study found that account use among children fell after the ban took effect, but significant numbers remained on the very platforms the law was written to keep them off. For most of those children, staying on took no effort at all. Many reported that existing accounts were never removed, while others got through age checks, created new accounts or relied on someone else to set one up for them. The regulator found platforms letting new users simply declare they were 16 or older, and allowing children to retry the same age check until they were eventually let through. One app was reported to allow 24 attempts a day. Some teens beat the face scans by drawing on facial hair. When accounts did close, children moved. Many reported spending more time on gaming platforms and messaging apps, and some said they felt less safe online than before. Apps left outside the ban, like WhatsApp, surged in popularity. One Australian research compared the regulator’s job to a game of whack-a-mole, chasing each new app after children had already found it. Gaming is one of the areas of greatest concern. Roblox and Discord were not among the services covered by Australia’s initial ban, yet they offer friend lists, private chats, voice channels, group servers and strangers who can reach a child directly. Roblox now uses age-based controls to limit who can communicate with whom, but neither platform was required to keep a 14-year-old off the service entirely. Indonesia and Malaysia saw the same risk and included Roblox inside their bans. If gaming and messaging services fall outside the bill’s scope, children will simply do their socializing there instead. Platforms usually decide which country’s law applies based on the Internet address the phone connects through and a VPN routes that connection through a server somewhere else. A teenager in Cambridge can appear to be in Kentucky, Kenya or Korea, all places where Canadian law does not reach. Many free VPNs make their money by collecting and selling what their users do online, and so a child using one may be handing their browsing history to a company nobody can identify. Australia’s regulator now expects platforms to try to stop under-sixteens from using VPNs, but new servers appear faster than old ones can be blocked, which is another game of whack-a-mole. Here is another weak point. Facial age estimation is quick and inexpensive, but even one of the industry’s leading providers reports an average error of approximately one year for teenagers, yet this bill draws a hard line at a single birthday. An error of a year in either direction lets some 15-year-olds through and locks out some 17-year-olds, and children have already shown they will keep trying until the camera says yes. Government ID is more accurate, but it means handing a child’s identity to a private company, and that information is valuable to criminals and hostile foreign actors alike. To its credit, this bill says that information can only be used for age checks and must be destroyed once the check is done, but a rule on paper is not the same as a secure system. Every database containing sensitive information will eventually become a target. Just last month, IDScan.net confirmed a breach involving more than 150 million drivers’ licences and identity records. The challenge is only growing as AI accelerates the discovery of software vulnerabilities and the speed at which attackers can exploit them. Before coming to this House, I worked in systems architecture and database management. One thing this experience taught me is that data scheduled for deletion is still data until the moment it is actually deleted. Every additional database creates another target, another vulnerability and another risk that must be managed. Canadians need to know who will hold that information, where it will be stored, who owns the companies holding it, how long it will be retained and whether Canadians will be notified if a breach occurs. There is also a gap that no age check closes because the bill restricts holding an account, not viewing content. The government’s own charter statement confirms that young people would still be able to browse without an account. A child without an account can often still watch videos and scroll public feeds while logged out, where none of the teen safety settings or parental controls apply. Parents are still the first line of defence for their children online. The question for Parliament is whether this bill gives parents meaningful tools to help protect their children or whether those tools and safeguards are more effective on paper than in real life. Many countries are still adjusting their own approaches. France’s constitutional council struck down the country’s proposed social media ban before it could take effect, citing concerns about privacy safeguards and freedom of expression. All around the world, governments are trying to answer many of the same questions that Parliament is grappling with today. Australia has also had to go back and strengthen its own law. It doubled the maximum penalty and gave its regulator the power to compel internal company documents. That should give us pause about enforcement here. Australia’s regulator is well established, with experienced staff and existing powers, and it still needed months to open investigations into five platforms and has yet to issue a fine. This bill would create a brand new commission of three to five members that would be starting from nothing while facing the same companies. Officials have said it could take 18 months to set up. However, the minister has said that platforms would have to act as soon as this law comes into effect. Much of what decides whether this law works has been left to regulations that Parliament has not seen. That does not mean the bill is wrong, but it does mean that Parliament is being asked to place considerable trust in decisions that have not yet been made. Those are not arguments against protecting children online. They are questions Parliament should answer before concluding that this framework will work as intended. How will enforcement work in practice, and will it be based on a user’s age or their apparent location? What age verification and safe design regulations will ultimately be adopted, and what opportunity will Parliament have to review them? How will children’s age verification data be collected, stored, protected and deleted, and what happens if that information is breached? Will the bill follow children to where they actually spend their time online, including gaming platforms, messaging services and content viewed while logged out? How will Parliament and Canadians know whether the law is achieving its goals and whether circumvention remains widespread? What standards will a platform have to meet in order to be exempt from the age restriction, and how transparent will those decisions be? I opened by saying that a security system is judged by its weakest point. Here, that weakest point could be a teenager with a VPN, a flawed age verification process, inconsistent and unenforceable rules, unanswered questions from a bureaucratic commission, rival platforms not covered by legislation, data security questions or other unintended consequences that we have not yet identified. A bill like this, with such important goals and significant consequences, deserves careful study. We need a law that holds up when it is tested. Let us send this bill to committee. Let us find and fix those weak points. Let us get it right to protect our children.”

“Canada's steel crisis is hurting other businesses now. Stelco is laying off workers, so a manufacturer in my community cannot get the steel it needs. It will lose customers and jobs. What will the Prime Minister do to keep these businesses open and save these jobs?”

“Mr. Speaker, the damage from Canada’s steel crisis is not stopping at the steel mill. Stelco is idling its coating lines and laying off workers, and the downstream industry is taking a hit. A stamping manufacturer in my community of Cambridge bought its steel from Stelco for years. Now that the supply is gone, it is not able to source what it needs. It will lose its contracts and customers because it cannot get its steel in time. That is more jobs that will be gone for good. What is the Prime Minister going to do to keep these businesses open and Canadians working?”

In response to a question from Christine Normandin

“Canada has high environmental standards and strong experts. We can carefully review projects while still making decisions quickly. We need to pass this bill so jobs and investments do not leave Canada.”

“Mr. Speaker, there is a lot to discuss about who would be involved with the decision-making. We have to think about who cares about whether local businesses stay open and whether children and grandchildren can find opportunities close to home. Those objectives should not be in conflict. Canada has some of the most skilled workers, highest environmental standards and strongest regulatory expertise in the world. Surely we should be capable of conducting a rigorous review process while still providing businesses and workers with certainty. That is why Parliament’s responsibility would be not simply to review projects or have specific people assigned to review these projects. It would be to ensure that decisions are made before jobs, investment and opportunities disappear from Canada.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 32 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 Dan Albas

“I agree with the previous speaker. One minister should not have all the power to make these huge decisions. Canadian businesses are exhausted from high costs and too much uncertainty. We need rules that bring investment and jobs to Canada, not rules that push them away.”

“Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely correct. How could one person make a decision like this that would affect so many people? The strongest message I am hearing right now is that people need a reason to be optimistic again. They want businesses to grow instead of laying people off. They want investment coming into Canada instead of leaving. They want to know that opportunities for their children and grandchildren will still exist here in the years ahead. The concern I am now hearing is not frustration. It is exhaustion. Business owners have spent years adapting to rising costs, supply chain challenges, labour shortages and uncertainty. That is what the debate comes down to. Canadians want a path forward, and they want decisions that support jobs, investment and opportunity in Canada, by Canadians and for Canadians.”

In response to a question from Steeve Lavoie

“I want projects to get built, but this bill just creates more red tape. The government promised a past law would speed up approvals, and it failed. If they believe in this new bill, they should send it to committee so we can look at it closely.”

“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives do support getting projects built. The question is whether Canadians would actually see better results and more results instead of more bureaucracy. Eighteen months ago, Canadians were told that Bill C-5 would speed up approvals to get projects moving. Instead of these things’ moving forward, we are in the House debating Bill C-39. The promises of Bill C-5 still have not materialized. If the Liberals are so confident of Bill C-39, they should be open to having it discussed in committee to provide full transparency and accountability to Canadians. At some point the conversation must shift from promises to results.”

• 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 trust this bill to get projects built faster. The government says reviews will take one year, but it can pause the clock while costs keep rising for businesses. I want a committee to carefully study the labour changes in this bill and hear from workers and employers.”

“Mr. Speaker, for years, Canadians have been telling the government that projects need to get moving. Canadians desperately need homes, reliable infrastructure, good jobs and a stronger economy. We have enormous potential to attract investment and develop the resources and industries needed to achieve these goals. What we need to know is whether our federal processes are allowing us to take advantage of those opportunities. For over a year, Canadians have heard the Liberal government talk about building Canada, major projects, infrastructure and economic growth. They heard the same promises 18 months ago, when Bill C-5 was presented as the solution that would speed up approvals and get projects moving. Today, Canadians are still waiting for results, yet the government is once again asking them to trust that this new bill will be different. Canadians are asking a very simple question: What happened? Canadians are tired of the announcements. They want to see projects built, with shovels in the ground, workers on job sites and investment staying in Canada. In Cambridge and North Dumfries, people want good jobs, growing businesses and opportunities that allow their children and grandchildren to build their futures here at home. When Ottawa adds uncertainty and delay, it is not just a file sitting on a desk; it affects families, businesses and communities that are counting on those opportunities. It can mean a business deciding not to invest, an expansion being delayed or a job that never gets created. Instead of making it easier to build, the government seems to have gotten very good at building something else: more bureaucracy, more processes and more layers of red tape. Canada does not need more bureaucracy standing between a good idea and a project that gets built. If Canada is serious about competing for investment, creating jobs and building the infrastructure we need, then projects need to be approved in a reasonable amount of time. The question before us today is whether this bill, Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, would actually help us build, or whether Canadians are once again being asked to trust another Liberal promise to fix the problem the Liberals created over the past 10 years. That is why Conservatives are looking very closely at Bill C-39. The Conservatives have been clear about what needs to change. We need less red tape, more clear timelines, a true one project, one review system and the repeal of Liberal laws that have made it harder to build. A project cannot create jobs, grow the economy or make Canada more independent if it is stuck waiting for approval. The Liberals keep saying this bill would establish a one-year timeline for federal reviews and decisions on major projects. On paper, that sounds straightforward, but what does that one-year clock actually mean when it is being managed by the government? In the Liberals’ world, that clock can be stopped for several reasons, but time keeps ticking on in the real world. The construction season does not stop, interest payments do not stop and payroll does not stop. Businesses and investors do not have unlimited time to wait for the government to make a decision. Many businesses are already reaching the point where waiting is no longer an option. That is the problem with measuring time by the government’s standards. The government can pause the clock on a piece of paper, but Canadian business owners cannot pause their financing costs, workers cannot pause their mortgage payments and investors cannot infinitely pause their plans while Ottawa works through review after review. A one-year timeline provides little certainty if Canadians cannot determine when it starts, what circumstances can stop it and when the government is obligated to make a decision, because every time that clock stops in Ottawa, time keeps ticking somewhere else. The clock keeps ticking for the business ready to invest, the worker desperately looking for a job and the community counting on growth, and all the while, other countries are competing for that same investment. Our Canadian businesses should not have to wonder whether the clock has started, stopped or been reset. They need to be able to plan, invest and create opportunities where Canadian workers can find good jobs. That is why the labour provisions in this bill are so important. Getting projects approved faster is one thing, but protecting the workers who build and operate those projects is equally essential. After all, projects are not built on timelines alone. They are built on stable labour relations, predictable rules and confidence that the process will work as intended. When that confidence begins to erode, the foundation for long-term success erodes with it. Unfortunately, that is exactly what we have seen in recent years, as the federal government has repeatedly intervened in labour disputes through section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. People can have different views about individual disputes. Every time the government intervenes, the question is whether it is helping the parties reach an agreement or gradually becoming part of the bargaining process. Collective bargaining works best when workers and employers sit down at the table and do the challenging work of reaching a mutual agreement. The bargaining clock has to be allowed to run, giving both sides the time and incentive to negotiate, compromise and find solutions. When intervention becomes expected, rather than exceptional, faith in that process starts to slip away. At the very moment those questions are being debated across the country, the government is proposing significant changes to the Canada Labour Code. These are not technical amendments or housekeeping measures. They could affect workers, unions, employers and federally regulated industries. The government is asking Canadians to accept that these changes will improve the system, but that case has to be made through transparency, accountability and scrutiny, not through assurances alone. That is why these provisions deserve thorough study at committee. Workers, unions and employers deserve to be heard, and Canadians deserve to know how these changes will affect labour relations in this country. If the government believes these amendments will strengthen labour relations, it should welcome that discussion and be prepared to make its case publicly. Good legislation is strengthened by scrutiny, and if these changes are going to shape labour relations for years to come, Parliament has a responsibility to get them right. However, building is only one part of the equation. This bill also looks at transportation infrastructure and trade corridors. We need to be able to move what we build. Our farmers need to get grain to market, manufacturers need to move their products and exporters need reliable access to ports. Communities like mine depend on transportation networks that function reliably and efficiently. When those networks fall short, the consequences are felt by businesses, workers and families that are already dealing with rising costs. These delays come with a price. Every hour a shipment sits waiting is time a business cannot get back, and every delay at a port or along a trade corridor adds costs that do not simply disappear. Those costs are ultimately borne by businesses, workers and consumers. The government says this bill will strengthen Canada’s trade corridors, improve transportation infrastructure and better coordinate federal approvals. The question is whether Canadians will actually see projects move faster or this will become another government office responsible for reporting on progress, rather than delivering results. Canadians do not need another progress report. They need the project. They need things built. Time keeps ticking. Canada cannot afford to spend another decade debating whether we should build the infrastructure we already know we need. We have the raw materials, the resources, the skilled workers, the entrepreneurs and the businesses ready to invest. What we need now are decisions. Opportunities do not wait for government processes and neither do our competitors. That is why the Conservatives will continue to advocate for less red tape, faster approvals and greater certainty. We will support a one project, one review approach so that there is one clear decision. We will continue to push for the repeal of laws that have made it harder to build and we will continue to fight for policies that save Canadians money and protect Canadian jobs. At its core, this is about affordability. It is about whether Canadians can afford to live, work, raise a family and build a future in this country. The people in my community of Cambridge and North Dumfries are not asking for the impossible. They want good jobs, new opportunities and the assurance that when a project makes sense, it will not spend years tied up in process and delay. While the government is stopping and starting clocks, Canadians cannot put their lives on hold waiting for Ottawa. It is time to make decisions. It is time to get projects moving. It is time to build.”

“Young people cannot find good jobs in Canada and are planning to leave. The government has made life too expensive. I want the Liberals to adopt our Conservative economic plan so Canadians can find work.”

“Mr. Speaker, a family stopped by my office to share their story. Twenty-five years ago, they came to Canada to build a new home and a better future for their children. Their son graduated as an engineer, and their daughter is about to graduate. Both are struggling to find a good job that pays the bills. Now, they are planning to leave Canada. They worked hard, followed the rules and loved this country. That used to be enough. The Liberals have broken every promise of having an affordable life. Will the Liberals adopt our Conservative economic action plan so Canadians can find jobs and have hope that tomorrow will be better?”

In response to a question from Kelly McCauley

“Jewish people deserve protection from hatred, but our laws already make these acts illegal. The real problem is that current hate crime laws are not being enforced. We do not need a new bill that repeats existing laws and removes legal protections for religious texts.”

“Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely correct. Anti-Semitism is real, and Jewish communities deserve protection, but the Criminal Code already provides that. A lawyer the Liberals themselves brought to committee said Bill C-9 would not criminalize anything that is not already illegal. The real conversation is about why existing hate crime laws are not being enforced consistently. We agree on the goal of protecting vulnerable communities. The question is whether duplicating existing law, while removing the religious text defence, actually gets us there.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Ryan Turnbull

“This bill will not make Canadians safer or stop violent crime. We do not need this bill. We need to enforce our current laws and make them stronger.”

“Madam Speaker, the member across the way is the one who has been fighting against mandatory minimums, so I do not see how he is going to want to be strengthening the laws. The Liberals created this problem, and the Conservatives have the solution. Removing the religious defence will not make Canadians safer. It will not stop repeat offenders. It will not stop violent criminals, and it will not stop gang violence. It will not stop extortion. It will not stop human trafficking, and it will not stop criminals who continue to terrorize communities across Canada. What we need is for the laws we currently have to be strengthened and enforced.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 41 of 100

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

  See full analysis →