“I want this bill sent to committee so we can study it carefully. Social media harms children's mental health, and we need rules to make online platforms safer. But I do not want a new government office acting as internet police and censoring what Canadians say. We must protect kids without taking away our basic freedoms.”

“Madam Speaker, over the past decade, we have seen an alarming rise in rates of anxiety, depression, self-harm and other mental health challenges among young people. Many parents, educators and health professionals have raised concerns about the role social media may be playing in this trend. Social media has fundamentally changed childhood. While these platforms can help young people connect with friends, learn new things and access information, they can also contribute to sleep deprivation, attention fragmentation, loneliness, social comparison and addictive behaviours. The reality is that many social media platforms are designed to maximize the amount of time users spend online. When platforms offer services for free, it is often because the users themselves have become the product. Their attention is a valuable commodity that companies compete to capture and sell to advertisers. The longer users remain engaged, the more profitable those platforms become. As a result, companies are often competing against one another for our attention and, in some cases, the attention of our children. Too often, the incentives in the marketplace reward engagement rather than well-being. That is why many Canadians are asking whether more should be done to encourage safer online environments for young people. Children should be protected from products that are intentionally designed to be addictive. I believe social media companies should recognize their responsibility to design services that put the best interests of children first. However, given current business practices and market incentives, many believe legislation may be necessary to encourage different behaviours and different design choices. Governments have a role to play in creating those incentives and in providing parents with the tools they need to make informed decisions about how their children engage with the online world. This brings me to Bill C-34, the safe social media act, which is before us today. The legislation would establish new responsibilities for organizations that operate social media platforms, AI-powered chatbots and other online services. For example, regulated social media services would be required to provide users with tools to block and report harmful content as well as with access to support resources. In addition, the legislation would create a new regulator responsible for overseeing compliance and enforcing these requirements. The bill is built around two key obligations. First, there is a duty to protect children. This includes safety-by-design requirements, age-appropriate design features and measures intended to limit children’s exposure to harmful and pornographic content. Second, there is a duty to be transparent. Platforms would be required to maintain records demonstrating compliance and publish a digital safety plan in a clear and accessible format. The legislation would apply to three categories of regulated services: social media services, including livestreaming and adult content platforms; AI-powered chatbot services, which are treated as a distinct category with their own obligations; and certain other online services, including websites and applications that allow users to interact with them. In short, Bill C-34 seeks to establish a framework for digital safety, transparency and accountability in online spaces. While I will be supporting the bill to be sent to committee, I have some apprehensions with the legislation. While I will always support the right of parents to control what their children see online and believe they should be given the tools to do so, I take issue with the creation of a new federal bureaucratic department to act as the Internet police. We must be careful that in our effort to make the Internet safer, we do not create a system that places excessive power in the hands of government regulators or imposes burdensome requirements on platforms without delivering meaningful results for Canadian families. As legislators, we must exercise caution whenever we grant government new powers over what Canadians can see, share or access online. Protecting children is an important objective, but it must not come at the expense of fundamental freedoms. We must ensure that this legislation contains clear safeguards and accountability measures so that it cannot be used to expand government control over online speech or set a precedent for future censorship. This is something Conservatives will continue to champion as this bill moves through the legislation process. It is also important that we examine real-world examples of similar legislation. In December 2025, Australia implemented a ban on social media access for children under the age of 16. Rather than placing responsibility on parents or young people, the Australian approach focuses on holding social media platforms accountable for enforcing the rules. Oversight is provided by Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, which issues guidance on the measures platforms must take to prevent underage access and has the authority to impose significant financial penalties on companies that fail to comply. As Parliament studies Bill C-34, we should carefully examine the results of the Australian model. What has been the outcome in Australia and has it been effective? Early evidence suggests there is reason for caution. In March 2026, the Molly Rose Foundation conducted the first large-scale survey of Australians aged 12 to 15 following the introduction of the social media ban. The survey found that 61% of young people who previously had accounts on restricted platforms continued to have access to at least one active account. More than half of those who had used platforms such as TikTok, YouTube and Instagram remained able to use those services, while 70% of children who continued to access restricted platforms said it was easy to circumvent the ban. The survey also found that 51% of respondents believed the ban had made no difference to their online safety, while 14% reported feeling less safe online. Although some children reported spending less time online, the overall impact on well-being was mixed. These findings suggest that while the objective of protecting children online is laudable, legislation alone may not be sufficient if young people can easily bypass the restrictions and continue accessing social media platforms. The Australian experience shows how difficult it is to keep children safe online. In many ways, it is like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube. Technologies move quickly and young people often find ways around restrictions that governments and platforms put in place. This is why Parliament must take the time to thoroughly study Bill C-34 at committee. We should hear from a broad range of witnesses, including parents, teachers, child advocates, civil liberties advocates, legal experts and those working in the technology sector. We all agree that children should be protected online, but good intentions alone do not make good policy. Before moving forward, Parliament must ensure the measures proposed are active, effective and practical and that they strike the right balance between protecting children and preserving the rights and freedoms of Canadians.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 4 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →

“Teens started using smartphones in the early 2010s. This changed how their brains and social lives grow. I think it is the biggest reason kids are struggling today.”

“Madam Speaker, it goes back to asking what on earth happened to teens in the early 2010s. It was the move from regular phones to smart phones. The rewiring of childhood has interfered with children’s social and neurological development. I think that has been the greatest cause for the crisis we are in today.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“We need to study this bill carefully in committee. We want to protect young people and hold social media platforms accountable. But the government gives the new commission too much power with too little oversight. We need to add real safeguards before this becomes law.”

“Madam Speaker, I completely agree that this matter should be studied thoroughly. Conservatives want to ensure that young people are safe and that platforms are held accountable. However, many Canadians are concerned about the very broad powers the government wants to grant the proposed commission without sufficient accountability mechanisms. Bill C‑34 deserves much closer scrutiny in committee. We need to take the time to study it carefully and ensure that the appropriate safeguards are in place.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  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 →
• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“We want to keep kids safe and hold social media platforms accountable. But this bill gives a new commissioner too much power with too little oversight. A committee needs to study this bill much more carefully across party lines to get it right.”

“Mr. Speaker, Conservatives want to make sure kids are kept safe and platforms are held accountable. The concern many Canadians have is that the Liberals would give the proposed commissioner sweeping powers with little accountability. Bill C-34 requires much more scrutiny at committee and needs non-partisan work to get it right.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 48 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Protecting kids online matters to every parent. I hear a lot of worry from people about internet dangers. I want the member to share what the parents in his riding are telling him about this.”

“Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his interest in this very important question, namely protecting young people online. I would ask him to speak on a more personal level and tell us about the people in his riding. This is an issue that concerns more than just the members of the House. The protection of children online is a concern for all parents. Is he, like me, hearing more and more about people’s fears regarding the many dangers that now lurk online for young people?”

“People in my riding and in my family are worried about what is happening on social media. Technology used to change slowly, but social media is moving alarmingly fast.”

“Madam Speaker, yes, that is absolutely the case in my riding. Closer to home, in my family, I have three young people who are parents, and they tell me all the time that what is happening on social media today is very worrisome. In my grandmother’s day, as I was saying, progress took a long time. We went from horse-drawn carriages to the telephone, then to radio, television, and sending a man to the moon. All of these things took a long time. However, today, social media is advancing alarmingly quickly.”

“I have concerns with this bill. It is not currently possible to verify people's ages safely, as Australia's experience shows. We also cannot make big tech companies keep their promises to delete stored data.”

“Madam Speaker, this is a very important subject. The member across the way mentioned that there would be highly secure age verification. How would this be done? It is not actually possible right now, as we can see with what has happened in Australia with its policies. He also mentioned that the big tech companies would promise to erase the data they store. How is that possible to regulate? He can understand why we have concerns with the bill.”

“I do not support this bill as it is written. We need to help parents protect their kids online, not replace them with government rules. This bill forces Canadians to prove their age before privacy rules and exemptions are even set up. It violates privacy and free speech, and it will not stop kids from viewing harmful content without an account.”

“Madam Speaker, like many members of Parliament this past summer, I consciously spent some time speaking with residents in my riding about this proposal, which was introduced before the summer recess. The reviews were mixed, I have to say. Some were in favour of it, some opposed, and I will get into some of the reasons for that. I met with one specific group that stood out to me, and I want to give them a bit of a shout-out. It was a young moms’ book club in Uxbridge. There was one very brave dad who also attended this book club, and he was a good sport throughout the entire meeting. I want to thank these young moms from Uxbridge, and one young dad, for taking the time to discuss this issue with me and, in fact, for proactively reaching out to me in the summer to have a discussion. In fact, they got a bit of special treatment because during the book club meeting where we were discussing this Liberal proposal, the leader of the official opposition called me on my cell phone. Naturally, when the boss calls, I answer. I spoke to him about the issue he was calling me about, and then I said, “I’m here with a group of moms talking about this proposal, Bill C-34. Would you take a minute, on speakerphone, to talk to them and hear what they have to say?” He very kindly agreed to do that. They had a great interaction for about five or 10 minutes with the Leader of the Opposition. They were surprised and quite happy to have the opportunity to advocate their position to the Leader of the Opposition. I think that is a great story about Canadian democracy and how accessible all members of Parliament really try to be. One thing I think we agree on, moms, dads and Conservative members of Parliament, is that children do seem to be facing challenges online, being exposed to inappropriate content and potentially being exposed to exploitation. Parents, equally, are facing challenges online by trying to parent in a rapidly changing technological environment where children often are better equipped than parents themselves. I only have a one-year-old, but she already picks up my phone and tries to scroll because she sees what we are doing. I am a little worried she has already picked up the bug. Lastly, I think moms, dads and Conservative MPs agree that technology companies need to do better in responding to these potential dangers. One of the overarching principles in this debate, which I will express now and throughout this debate, whether here or in committee as the bill progresses, is that we need to seek to empower parents, not replace them. We want to put power in the hands of parents, not in the hands of technology companies, and certainly not in the hands of government. There are several reasons for this. First and foremost, from a common-sense point of view, parents know their children better than anyone else. Parents must and do have primary authority and guardianship over their children, and that makes sense because parents love their children and want the best for them. It also makes sense because, increasingly, Canadians do not trust the government. It is not too hard to see why. Canadians do not trust the Liberals with these issues because they have shown themselves to be untrustworthy. Previous Bill C-63, the online harms act, was a failure. Previous Bill C-11, the Online Streaming Act, is a failure. Bill C-9, the so-called Combatting Hate Act, is another failure. It is not clear to me that the proposals the government brings forward really empower parents in any of these situations. They certainly empower a new regulator, but I see more support for that than for empowering the people who are raising children. I want to point out a few of the flaws that I see in this bill that I hope can be addressed. The first, of course, is this idea of a ban itself. The government has touted a social media ban, but really, when we peel back the pages of this proposal, it is a temporary ban. It is a temporary ban, but one that would impose permanent infringements on Canadians’ privacy. The government has said it would move quickly to bring the ban into force, without waiting for the new regulatory body to become fully operational. By the government’s own estimates, it would likely take between 12 and 18 months, or more, for the regulatory body to be appointed, pass regulations, make orders or provide guidance. Imposing the ban before all of that is ready would have serious consequences. There would be no standards for age verification, no privacy review, no exemptions and likely no or little enforcement. Perhaps most obviously to me, it would mean that millions of Canadians would be required to verify their age immediately, even though regulated platforms may later be exempt from age verification. That makes little sense to me. It is also odd because it is the opposite of the approach taken by the Australian government, which Canada’s government has touted as an example for itself. Australia passed its law, and it did not take effect for over a year, so the very things I am talking about, like the establishment of a regulator and the passing of regulation and guidance, could be done before any sort of ban took effect. This means that services likely to qualify for an exemption, something like YouTube Kids, which provides parents with parental controls, content limits, etc., would not get an exemption for many months or years, if at all, but it would likely be entitled to one anyway. Moreover, it is not clear to me that this approach would even address the harms it sets out to address, because as I read the bill, it would only prevent the creation of a social media account. It would not prevent access to social media content or the browsing of it. This is an admission the government makes, even in the charter statement. Underage users would still be able to access content that the government says is harmful. Lastly, a flaw that I see is that the bill is premised on subjecting platforms to regulation based on their number of users. With too small a number of users, we would catch everyone, and with too large a number of users, we may miss people. There is no answer provided by the government to that question. I also want to talk about one question that has not received enough attention in second reading. In fact, I reviewed the minister’s speech and the parliamentary secretary’s opening speech, and they did not mention this issue at all. It is the question of whether the proposals in the bill, age verification and a temporary ban, are consistent with the Constitution and are consistent with the charter. The charter statement, which was submitted late by the government, correctly noted a few charter rights that would be engaged by the bill. The requirement, for example, in the bill to control how and when content is accessible to users obviously engages section 2(b), which guarantees the freedom of expression. I do not think there is any serious argument there that, on its face, the bill would infringe that expression. The question is whether it may be saved or not. Another issue flagged in the charter statement, correctly, if even limited in its treatment, would be the ability to close a hearing to the public. Obviously, that engages free expression and the open court principle. Age verification and the collecting of personal information engages section 8 of the charter, which protects against unreasonable search and seizure. The commission’s proposed ability to compel the production of papers, summon people and enter premises engages sections 7 and 8 also. These questions have not been answered, and I want to dig into this a little in the remaining time I have. First, as I noted above, the temporary ban would come first. Exemptions and rules would come second. The charter statement does not even address this issue at all. Is it constitutional to subject millions of people to temporary age verification? There is no answer. Moreover, the charter statement really only considers one side of the issue of expression. It rightly points out that the harmful expression identified in the proposal, things like subjecting people to sexually explicit material, falls far from the core guarantee of freedom of expression. There is no argument from me on that, but it utterly fails to address the inevitable likelihood that other content would be subject to complaints to the regulator and ultimately censorship. Perhaps most fatally, even if the so-called safeguards, like privacy protections in the bill and exemptions for platforms in the future, would make this bill constitutional, the problem remains that none of those protections would be operational when the bill is passed. That is a fundamental question that the bill does not answer, and the government has not provided an answer either, so I hope we get one. In closing, I want to give a short message to the moms and to the kids. Social media is not always real life. Someone is not defined by how many likes their Facebook post receives. They are not defined by how awesome the world they built in Minecraft really is, nor are they defined by one mistake they may make on social media. I think that is a lesson that all members of Parliament can take too.”

“I did not call the father scared. I called him brave for coming to speak with his MP about this issue. The member opposite should not insult his parenting or treat this as a joke.”

“Madam Speaker, I hope the member opposite is not impugning a dad who came to listen to his MP and impugning his ability to parent his children, because I think that would be offensive to him. For the record, I do not believe I said he was scared. I said he was brave, and he was brave. He was brave to be there to speak to his MP and tell his MP what he thought about the issue. If that is funny to the member across the way, I think she should consider her opinions.”

• 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 →