Martin Champoux

“I worry this bill lets the government avoid blame for defense spending decisions. The new agency's president is close to the Prime Minister and will make about $700,000 a year, which is more than the Prime Minister makes. If there are scandals or bad decisions, the government could just blame this agency. The government needs to stay directly in charge of defense investments.”

“Madam Speaker, is this not a way for the government to shirk some of its responsibility? Is it not a bit risky to create an agency to handle such crucial and sensitive defence investments? Questions are already being raised. First, there is the appointment of the agency’s president, who is close to the Prime Minister and has a background at Goldman Sachs. Then, that person’s salary is around $700,000 a year, which is more than that of most senior public servants. That is more than what the Minister of Finance and National Revenue himself earns, and it is more than the Prime Minister’s salary, though interest on his investments is not included in that figure. I wonder if this is a way for the government to offload some of its responsibility. When there are questionable decisions, when there are suspicions of misconduct or scandals, which could happen, even if it is just cases of misconduct that need to be investigated, the government might then be able to claim that it was not them, that it was the agency, and that it cannot be held responsible. On the contrary, when it comes to defence investments, it is absolutely essential for the government to be at the helm.”

“Broadcasters in Quebec must pay fees that fund our culture, but the government lets rich American streaming companies pay nothing. This breaks the rules and hurts our local businesses and culture. I want the government to explain why it gives this unfair advantage to American companies.”

“Mr. Speaker, all TV and radio station operators in Quebec are required to pay levies, pay fees, pay into the system. That is how cultural production is funded. However, thanks to the Liberals, American streamers like Netflix do not have to pay a penny. The American web giants that are infinitely richer than Quebecor or Bell Media get a free pass, which, by the way, directly contradicts the Online Streaming Act. Why is the federal government giving an advantage to American multinationals with billions of dollars at their disposal at the expense of our businesses and our culture?”

“Big tech companies were supposed to pay $600 million to help our culture, but the government stepped in to pay it instead. Other businesses are struggling with tariffs and need help too. What message does it send to them when the government suddenly finds $600 million for this?”

“Madam Speaker, it is my turn to thank my colleague from Saint-Jean for her excellent speech and for her passion. I believe the House can see that that passion is shared by all Bloc members when we talk about culture and the French language. The government has decided to step in for the digital giants, which were supposed to pay out $600 million in compensation. In my colleague’s view, what message does this send to the other sectors of the Quebec and Canadian economies that are struggling with the impact of tariffs? Businesses are looking to the government for support in the face of the tariff threat that constantly hangs over their heads. Meanwhile, there was already a funding mechanism for the cultural sector that made sense to everyone. The government is capable of coming up with $600 million. What must the other sectors of the economy be thinking when they see this money appear, just like that?”

In response to a question from Gérard Deltell

“We needed a tax on big foreign digital companies to help our media and culture. The government did not give the money to those sectors, and then it got rid of the tax. This wastes billions of dollars that could help our culture and our economy.”

“Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague very much, and I look forward to hearing his comments on today’s motion later on. We should remember that this tax was originally requested and required to fund the cultural sector and the media, this entire sector where American digital companies swoop in and get rich. In the end, it was not used for that purpose at all; it was used for something else entirely. It went into the consolidated revenue fund instead of serving the sectors that had been hit hard by those companies entering the market. Yes, as my colleague said, this kind of flip-flopping and back-and-forth is absolutely pointless. In the end, the tax was repealed. We are depriving ourselves of billions of dollars that could give some serious breathing room to our cultural sector, as well as other sectors.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 93 of 100

  Of this reply, 90% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Mario Simard

“The government backed down on taxes that could have helped culture and broadcasting to please Donald Trump. We got nothing in return. Now the government looks bad because it gave up those taxes for nothing.”

“Madam Speaker, I am being asked for a brief answer to a question that would take several minutes to address, but I will simply talk about the digital services tax, which could have been used to fund the cultural and broadcasting sectors, as well as the backtracking on the levy of 5% to 15%. These concessions were made during negotiations with Donald Trump. What did we get in return? Nothing, period. Nothing. This is a somewhat awkward position for the government to be in now, saying that it will not reinstate the levy after having removed it to appease someone who never responded favourably to our request. I could go on, but I do not have enough time.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a comment in debate

  Signal 28 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Todd Doherty

“The government has not yet kept its promise to give $600 million to Canada's cultural sector. This money is not just for Quebec, but for all of Canada. The cultural sector brings in hundreds of billions of dollars every year.”

“That is a very good question, Madam Speaker, and I thank my colleague for asking it. My colleague is obviously generalizing; he is really broadening the scope of the issue, but fundamentally, I understand that we are talking about broken promises. In our motion today, we are addressing a promise that, while not yet broken, has not yet been kept, and that is very concerning. I am talking about the $600 million. This $600 million is not a request from Quebec. It is an amount intended for Canada’s entire cultural sector. As a result, it is not just about a request from Quebec. Of course, the Bloc Québécois is more focused on Quebec’s demands, that is well known, but in this case, it is a promise to all Canadians and to Canada’s entire cultural sector, which, I would like to remind you, generates hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue annually.”

In response to a question from Leslie Church

“We voted against the budget because the government ignored all 11 of our recommendations, especially the ones about culture. We voted against it to stand up for our people and our culture.”

“Madam Speaker, a budget is like a big stew. There are all sorts of things in there. We can love corned beef but not cabbage. When we vote for a budget, we are voting for a series of measures. Before a budget is tabled, parties make requests. We have recommendations to make for the budget. The Bloc Québécois had 11 amendments, many of which were culture-related. None of the Bloc Québécois’s recommendations, particularly those concerning culture, were included in the budget. When the Liberals ask us why we voted against funding measures for culture, it is because they did not listen. They did not get the job done. They botched the job. In that case, we take responsibility, we stand up for our people and our culture, and we vote against it.”

• 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 the government to make big online streaming companies pay fees to support our cultural sector. I also want the government to pay the cultural sector the $600 million it promised for this year. Quebec and Canadian culture are facing a serious crisis, and big tech companies should help pay for it instead of regular taxpayers.”

“moved: That, given that,(i) culture is central to Quebec’s identity,(ii) the cultural sector plays a critical role in Quebec’s economy,(iii) the media and cultural production sectors are facing serious pressures that hamper their development,(iv) the government nevertheless abolished the Digital Services Tax levied on the U.S. digital corporate giants,the House call on the government to:(a) uphold the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s decisions imposing levies on streaming services, as set out in the Broadcasting Act; and(b) make the interim payment of $600 million promised to the cultural sector for the current year. He said: Mr. Speaker, today is an important day because we are once again bringing an issue to the floor of the House that is very important to us, namely culture, and, more specifically and as a priority, Quebec and francophone culture. Before I begin my speech, I would like to extend my heartfelt congratulations to the MNA for Matane-Matapédia-Mitis in the Quebec National Assembly, Pascal Bérubé, who was appointed Minister of Culture, Heritage, Communications and the French Language. Pascal Bérubé is a highly capable and passionate man, as we saw at his swearing-in ceremony yesterday, and certainly someone who will fight for culture with the same passion and commitment to Quebec identity for which he is so well known. Today’s motion is important to the Bloc Québécois. It is also of vital importance to the cultural sector. Earlier this week, the Coalition for the Diversity of Cultural Expressions, or CDCE, was on Parliament Hill, accompanied by dozens of representatives from its member organizations. I took the opportunity to get a sense of their mood and take stock of the situation, since it is important to do that from time to time. I wanted to know whether the concerns and priorities we are advancing on behalf of the cultural sector are still relevant. I also wanted to find out whether we are, as my former colleague from La Prairie always said, “on the right track”. It is worse than I thought. The cultural sector is facing an unprecedented crisis. What is particularly troubling is that we have been warning about this crisis for years, yet the sector continues to receive little more than piecemeal support, despite the widely recognized urgent need for adequate, fair, sustainable, predictable, long-term funding. We can pile on all the adjectives we want. It is simply unacceptable that culture be left in this state of precariousness year after year, budget after budget. The motion that we are tabling today is not that complicated. First, we want to speak out against this government’s abandonment of culture, an abandonment that, in my view, has been almost systematic since it entered office in April 2025. The Liberals have done nothing but backtrack on cultural issues. Let me explain, although I suspect they will rise later to tell me that significant amounts were allocated to culture in budget 2025 and will be announcing good news in the coming weeks. Not abandoning culture involves more than giving away money now and then. It involves a commitment to fund the cultural sector in a meaningful way. First, we are facing an economic situation involving a southern neighbour ready to rock the boat at every opportunity. Our economic situation demands that we strengthen our sectors as much as possible. When we can, we must. When it comes to culture, we can. We have the means; they have been requested and demonstrated and they constitute a logical choice for ordinary, average people. Failing to act would be alarmingly irresponsible. Even the Liberals have been campaigning for years to bring in a system to ensure fairness in the broadcasting and cultural sector. Bill C-11, which I had the pleasure, so to speak, of working on for several years, was drafted in collaboration with and at the request of this Liberal government. However, the conclusion of that study, that work, was to give the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC, the responsibility, under the new Online Streaming Act, of establishing a system that would ensure that American digital companies—those multibillion-dollar companies that call the shots wherever they go and that governments lack the courage to regulate—contribute their fair share. The most logical approach is the one that has been used for decades with the traditional broadcasters and that is to impose some form of levy. That is what the CRTC has done. The CRTC worked on this for a long time, as it usually does, holding hearings and listening to representations from various stakeholders in the industry, and concluded that the right approach was to impose a 5% levy, a decision that was subsequently revised, resulting in a 15% levy. What did the government do? It did not say, finally, a fair way to establish a framework to ensure that companies making billions of dollars off our culture and our broadcasting system contribute so that people can continue to create and produce content that reflects who we are and ensures that Quebec culture, francophone culture and Canadian culture remain very much alive and can develop, continue to evolve and be the envy of many countries around the world in this ever-changing digital landscape. I mentioned earlier that the government will boast about having invested funds in budget 2025. It did invest in a number of sectors, including the audiovisual sector, and that was certainly appreciated. However, while the budget provided hundreds of millions of dollars to various areas of the cultural sector, some sectors facing even more acute challenges than others were completely overlooked. There was unanimous support for increasing the budget of the Canada Council for the Arts by $140 million. It received $6 million. Sectors such as entertainment presenters, cultural presenters, the visual arts and the performing arts were entirely ignored in this budget, and yet they are on the front lines sustaining culture, theatre, dance and other artistic disciplines. We need to support the entire cultural sector. It is not a collection of isolated groups. It is an ecosystem, an integrated whole that must function effectively and generate benefits throughout the sector. When the cultural community as a whole is properly supported, all of its sectors thrive. It is a vital part of both the Quebec and Canadian economies, and one that we simply cannot do without. The evidence is clear. I am fed up with hearing that the cultural sector is being funded or subsidized. That is not what is being done. We invest in culture, and that brings in billions of dollars for the Canadian economy. We cannot do away with that, especially at a time when we need to affirm our identity and protect our culture. We have been experiencing this in Quebec for decades now. I get the impression that, in Canada, people are also starting to realize that culture is important and that they need to protect their identity. Perhaps this would be a good time to learn from Quebec’s traditional demands on the matter. As I said earlier, CDCE representatives spent the week on the Hill. Their demands remain unanimous: They want the money they were promised, but they also want a system in place that will reassure them. The only way to reassure them is to have a funding system that is not subject to the government’s whims. The government cannot say that, this year, when it scrapped the 5% or 15% levies, it replaced that with $600 million, as promised. The government might say that this is great news because, next year, it intends to do the same thing and even index the amount. Next year, the amount would be $800 million. The government believes this should please the cultural sector. However, the year after that, the amount might drop to $200 million, which might put everyone into a bit of a pickle. Then, the year after that one, another government might be in power that is not interested in culture and might decide to get rid of it. We would be back at square one. It is unacceptable for the government to take this approach. It is important to create a system that reassures all cultural sector stakeholders. This means fair funding for culture and a significant contribution from big tech. There is the money, and then there is the principle. I hear the government saying that levies cannot be imposed on digital companies because they will simply pass the cost on to consumers. That is hogwash, so as not to use an expression that the Chair would reprimand me for. What a load of nonsense. Let us look at what has happened elsewhere, particularly in Europe. I was just at the French embassy yesterday with officials from the CDCE, and we discussed this very issue. Europe has imposed such levies. The European Union itself has imposed levies and has allowed other EU states to do the same, which France and others have done. The reality is that there has been no decrease in subscriptions to the digital platforms that are already generating billions of dollars in profits, and there has not been any dramatic increase in consumer costs. By choosing to fund culture itself rather than have the digital companies do it, the government is passing the bill on to Canadians. When Canadians are asked what concerns them the most right now, they point to the cost of living. Everything is becoming more expensive. However, Canadians are now being handed a $600‑million bill when the digital companies, which are raking in billions of dollars on the backs of our creators, are the ones that should be funding culture. That is the purpose of our motion today. I have a hard time imagining how the Liberal government, which has always claimed to support culture, or at least given the appearance of that, could oppose our motion. I would take a very dim view of that.”

• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “As set out in the Broadcasting Act.”

  Said 4 times by 4 members since October 22.

  Every time it was said →

In response to a question from Kevin Lamoureux

“I support creating this commission, but it depends on how it is set up. It must be independent from the government, without ministers interfering. It also needs real power to punish rule-breakers and do its job.”

“Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. There is a positive element to it, but much will depend on the powers ultimately granted to the commission in question. I believe it is important to have an independent body somewhat along the lines of what we see with a quasi-judicial tribunal such as the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC. The CRTC has its flaws, but no one can say that we would be better off without it and with the government acting as the sole regulator. The role of this commission will need to be defined. We would also need to ensure that it is independent from the government and that the minister is not constantly intervening in its decisions or proceedings. I think that is important. It is also important for the commission to have teeth, that it be able to take enforcement action, identify offenders and be given the tools it needs to do its job properly. If the commission is structured in such a way as to be effective and as independent as possible from political power, since it can never be 100% independent, I do think that a commission is necessary in such a context.”

• 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 Kevin Lamoureux

“It is too early to change this bill. We should talk more first. We should also listen to the video game industry, because it is already good at catching predators.”

“Mr. Speaker, at this stage, I do not see anything that needs amending. I cannot think of any amendments off the top of my head. I think there will be a lot of discussion before we get to the point of drafting amendments. There is one thing that might be worth taking a closer look at: video games, the video game industry. There is a lot of discussion going on, and it is an industry that has regulated itself effectively and is well-equipped to detect potential predatory behaviour. These are people who may not traditionally be heard in this context, and I think it will be helpful to include them in the discussion. Other questions will certainly arise along the way. It is a little too early for me to think about amendments.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 95 of 100

  Of this reply, 93% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Maxime Blanchette-Joncas

“This bill must not cross into areas run by Quebec and the provinces, like education and health care. The committee studying it needs to hear from provincial governments to make sure we respect their powers.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent point that I was unfortunately unable to address as I only had 20 minutes for my speech. Yes, the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces will have to be respected. One aspect of Bill C-34, or the approach we feel will have to be taken, is education. As members know, education falls within the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. It will therefore be important for the committee, as part of its study, to hear from all the provincial legislatures and the National Assembly to ensure that there is no encroachment. We must ensure that any recommendations that we end up implementing respect the constitutional division of powers, if they relate to education, health care or community-based services, for example. He makes an excellent point. There are issues of potential encroachment on provincial powers. We will need to take this into account and exercise caution.”

In response to a question from David Myles

“Our biggest challenge in committee will be pleasing everyone. People already have strong opinions on this bill. We need to work together respectfully, listen to each other, and be willing to change our minds so we can agree on the final bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thought the question was for you. That was my understanding. No? Then I will answer. That is an excellent question, and I thank my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, for asking it. I think we are going to run into a number of challenges. The biggest challenge we may face is pleasing everyone. Based on the correspondence that we have received regarding Bill C-34, some people’s opinions already seem rather entrenched. I think we need to create an environment conducive to open and respectful dialogue, where we listen to opinions that require us to adjust our positions on different aspects of the bill. In my opinion, the challenge lies in coming up with a bill we can all agree on, a bill that offers something for everyone so the final result suits everyone’s needs. It will be a challenge, which is why I say it will need to be a collaborative undertaking that is carried out responsibly and in a spirit of co-operation.”

• 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 us to pass this bill to committee. Social media companies use algorithms that get young people addicted to harmful content. We need rules that hold these platforms responsible for protecting kids. I am still open to discussing age limits, even though teens often find ways around bans. Parents are overwhelmed and need our help.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is my fan club. I cannot control them. I am really sorry. I want to come back to the idea of social media platforms and the algorithms they use to attract not just young people, but adults as well. We are talking about young people and saying that they are vulnerable, but often adults are too. Let us face it. Sometimes we fall asleep with our phone in our hand after spending too long watching silly videos, although we do also watch intelligent content. That said, the platforms use these algorithms to get young people addicted to their content. I want to say it again. Sometimes the content is very low quality, completely inane. It is not going to help our young people become doctors or great researchers. I think it is important for this law to be enacted and it is important to hold the platforms accountable. It is also important for parents to understand their role. Parents have good intentions. I never question parents’ good intentions in raising their children, but I do think that parents are quite literally overwhelmed. I can see this. These tools, the social media and the platforms specifically designed for young people, are not necessarily from the parents’ generation. They also feel a bit overwhelmed by them. That is also why Parliament needs to step in and tell parents that it is going to create a framework and that everyone is going to play a role. There will be legislation. The representatives of these platforms will be held accountable for the content they host and make accessible to young people. The government needs to hold them accountable for any harmful content that ends up on their platforms. They will need to be accountable for their content. They need to understand that however much money they invest in developing tools to attract young people, they should be investing at least as much, if not more, in protecting their users from this extremely dangerous content. There is the matter of age. I know that can be a sensitive subject. We have seen what is being done in other places like Australia. We have talked about it. Earlier, I heard my colleagues talking in their speeches about what is being done in Australia. We are also looking at what is being done in Europe. The idea of banning social media is one of the concerns that I raised from the very beginning in the conversations that I had with all of the stakeholders I met with. I told them right away that I disagreed with banning it. I disagree with a ban because when a young person is banned from doing something, it basically turns into forbidden fruit. They will definitely find a way around the restrictions. If members do not believe me, just ask my parents. My parents will tell them that when a young person is banned from doing something, they will find a way to do it anyway. It is true. I am kidding around, but anyone who has teenagers or who remembers being a teenager knows that when teens are banned from doing something, their first reaction is not to quietly accept the decision and agree that they are not allowed to do it. Their first reaction is to find a way to do it anyway, because they feel like going on social media. If we choose to ban young people from using social media, we are just going to end up dealing with the problem of them getting around the ban. We will also lose an opportunity to teach, train, warn and protect them, because we will simply be turning a blind eye and saying that social media has been banned and is no longer a problem. We risk losing control. That was my position before we began these extensive consultations. I must admit that I still have not reached a definitive conclusion about what solution we should adopt when it comes to restricting or prohibiting access to these platforms. I am much more open-minded today than I was at the outset, largely because I have heard perspectives that I found both compelling and relevant. With respect to a ban, my esteemed colleague from Lethbridge spoke earlier about what Australia did. She rightly pointed out that restricting access to social media for youth under 16 has not been as effective as some had hoped. Many young people have kept their accounts, while others have found ways around the restrictions by using VPNs or providing false information when creating accounts. However, there has still been a significant reduction in the number of young users on these platforms in Australia. My understanding is that the numbers have fallen by 30% or 35%. I do not have the exact figures here, but it is somewhere around there. This measure was implemented in December 2025. It has not even been in place for a full year, yet the number of people under 16 who are active on social media has dropped by about 35%. Some might say it was not a success, that it failed, but we could also look at it from a different angle and point out that there are now 30% fewer young people online. Maybe they replaced their screen time with something else, like playing outside, participating in activities, reading a book or socializing. Whatever alternative they chose, their time was not spent on social media, because they had no access to it. While it may not have been the resounding success that was hoped for, the minister is no Harry Potter. There is no magic involved. I do not think that we should look on it as a failure. As a measure, it can be adjusted based on the progress or observations made over time. In my opinion, a measure implemented in 2025 that has achieved a 30% success rate should not be dismissed out of hand. All of this brings me to a conversation that really took me by surprise. I was in my riding last week, and I met some exceptional individuals in a confidential setting. I am sorry, but I cannot discuss the details, regardless of parliamentary privilege. One of those exceptional individuals was a physician, Dr. Caroline Bissonnette-Roy, to whom I extend my regards. She works in the community, specifically at the Centre de pédiatrie sociale en communauté Les Petits bonheurs, a pediatric care centre in Drummondville. As everyone knows, these kinds of centres work miracles. The staff there are fantastic. In a conversation with this doctor, we spoke specifically about young people in vulnerable situations. Obviously, the parents of these young people often do not have much education and do not have a lot of time to devote to this part of their kids’ lives. She told me about her day-to-day work, about the children she saw who were psychologically affected by excessive screen time. Often, in certain situations, parents prefer to leave their kids to fend for themselves, for various reasons. I am not judging, obviously. There are all sorts of circumstances, all sorts of contexts. She is seeing this in her own community, in her practice. She is seeing the damage caused by excessive screen time for these kids. We also discussed the situation in Australia. An article had just been published that discussed the relatively questionable success rate of this measure. She told me she was in favour of a total ban, based on what she was seeing, of course. She sees some very difficult cases. She told me that we should ban social media entirely for anyone under the age of 16 or 18. We need to teach young people to go play outside, as I was saying earlier. We need to teach them to go out, go to the park, play hockey in the street, and do activities just like we used to when we were that age. We managed to get by just fine without cellphones. She told me that, as far as she was concerned, if we could get children away from screens and social media, that would be a victory, regardless of how many children we save. Whether we save 20%, 30% or 40% of them does not matter. It is going to be a victory because, according to her, we are literally going to save these young people. Their brains will develop normally, without being stunted by excessive screen time and exposure to the kind of content found on TikTok and other platforms that young people use. I thought that was an interesting perspective. I think we need to take advantage of the minister’s open-mindedness and the government’s willingness to reach out. Let us hope that this will also be the case when the bill is studied in committee. The government seems to be willing to reach out and listen to various perspectives and perhaps to adjust certain positions that may be too strict according to some or too soft according to others. I think we are going to end up with something that truly measures up to expectations. I feel strange saying this, but the whole world is watching. I said the same thing when we were talking about Bill C‑11, the Online Streaming Act. The whole world was watching us then too. Somebody needed to start regulating online streaming platforms. So far, not many countries have taken the lead, shown some backbone and decided to legislate on these issues. I think we owe it to our young people to do this. We also need to do it for the benefit of the entire world. That may sound a bit hyperbolic, but I think it is true. Suffice it to say that we need to adopt robust, binding measures for the digital companies that control these algorithms, which we now know are so harmful to the development of our young people. We need to show that we will not back down and that we are going to set up a system that will hold the right people accountable. When I say that, I am not just talking about the platforms. I am also talking about parents, because we need to give them the best tools we can. As legislators, we absolutely must stand up and do something to try to reverse these negative side effects that are literally destroying an entire generation. I think this is a topic we feel passionately about. We will also be able to discuss video games, which are another place where young people get exposed to all kinds of content through video game chat platforms. We are going to have to address a lot of different issues. I am really looking forward to studying this bill in committee. Bill C-34 is an extremely important bill. It places a heavy responsibility on our shoulders, and we must carry out this work as responsibly as possible.”

“I support this bill to make social media safer for children, but we still need to work together to improve it. The government waited far too long to act. Kids spend hours every day online, often without supervision. Social media companies use algorithms that trap young people and expose them to toxic content. We must hold these platforms accountable.”

“Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I would like to acknowledge my colleagues who spoke before me on this bill, which I consider to be one of the most important bills before this Parliament. It is extremely important, but also extremely overdue. This comes as no surprise, because with this government, everything happens a little too late, everything happens a little too hastily, and everything is handled rather clumsily at times. I must say that Bill C-34 has several positive aspects, but above all, it raises a number of points for discussion. I really appreciated the minister’s openness at the outset, when he introduced this bill in the House in June. His first instinct after introducing it was to reach out and say that he would love to talk about it, to discuss it, because he would like to know where we stand on the issue, what our position is, and how we could work together to improve the bill. I presume he took the same approach with colleagues from other parties in the House. It is that spirit of openness that leads to well-crafted legislation that takes into account different perspectives and beliefs. It also enables us, as parliamentarians, to make our voices heard and to represent our constituents by consulting them, as my colleague from Lethbridge said earlier. She mentioned that she had met with constituents over the summer and discussed the issues addressed by this bill. Many parents have expressed concerns, often feeling overwhelmed by technologies that literally captivate our children and can take them places we dare not imagine. In fact, parents are often unaware of what their children are exposed to until it is too late. The government should not wait for tragedy to strike before taking action on the toxic content found online. The government should not wait for such events to occur before introducing legislation. Despite the truly shocking and tragic incidents that have occurred over the last few years, the government still dragged its feet. It waited until 2026 to bring forward legislation aimed at addressing online content that is harmful to young social media users in particular. I would remind members that, in the previous Parliament, we had Bill C-63, an omnibus bill that we tried to split up. We tried to split the bill so that we could quickly pass part 1, which was basically in the same spirit as Bill C-34. Most members of the House thought that we could come to an agreement on that part, so we said, let us split the bill, take care of the part that can be dealt with quickly and work together like adults. I think we all feel this issue transcends party lines. After all, we are talking about young people’s safety, our children’s future, and how to keep them safe as they navigate an environment that we do not even fully understand ourselves. It was high time that we addressed this issue, so I welcome the introduction of Bill C-34, even though there are still a lot of things that need to be discussed. The Bloc Québécois is open to this legislation. As I just said, and I think it is rather clear, we agree with the principle of the bill. Obviously, like everyone here, and especially as parents, we care a lot about these issues and are deeply concerned about them. I have teenagers who spend far too much time on screens, especially on their phones and on platforms like Snapchat, Instagram and obviously TikTok, which I am not happy about. They are exposed to content over which I have little or no control. That troubles me as a parent. Where do we draw the line? How do we supervise our children without stopping them from participating in activities that are part of their social life these days? Whether we like it or not, whether we think it is a good idea or not, a big part of their life happens on these platforms. It is their social network, unfortunately. The name says it all. That damned name says it all. It is a social network that we, as parents and legislators, have a duty to supervise, but we also have a duty to do more to hold the platforms accountable. I will come back to that. I would like to share a few figures and statistics that illustrate the extent to which screens and social media have become a part of our lives, particularly among young people. Some 50% of children aged seven to 11 have access to a mobile device and use it on a daily basis. Again, that is one in two children aged seven to 11. Some 83% of children from grade 4 to the end of high school have a mobile device, which is pretty much everyone, and 100% of young people aged 15 and over use the Internet. Kids spend an average of three to five hours a day in front of a screen for entertainment, and most of that time is without parental supervision. That means they are free to go pretty much anywhere the social media platform or website they are using allows them. I think these figures should give any parent cause for concern, worry and even alarm. Why do we need legislation? Why do we have to legislate on this issue? First, as I said a moment ago, we have a role to play as legislators because this is not only a societal issue, but a health issue as well. We must not overlook a single tool. In this case, our tool is our ability to draft and vote on laws and work as hard as possible to ensure that our laws are minimally imperfect and meet our objective as much as possible. As the saying goes, “It takes a village to raise a child”. Imagine social media as a supercity; it takes everyone to navigate it and regulate it safely. There is an important reality that we need to understand, one that I have explored in some depth through discussions with stakeholders in this sector. The Bloc Québécois has met with a number of them, as have my colleagues. In fact, the critics from the various parties have met with many of the same people. What has become clear to me is the extent to which social media is designed to captivate, to literally capture people’s attention and keep it for as long as possible. That is their business model. That is how these platforms generate revenue. It is similar to television, where they try to get the best viewing numbers. Social media operates on the same principle. They use algorithms as a tool to attract young people and keep them engaged. Algorithms are a trap. They act like a tunnel, guiding users to destinations they could never have anticipated when they first set off down that path. Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of noise. Might I ask that you put a stop—”