Safe Social Media Act

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

What Bill C-34 would do

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

Official text (opens in a new tab)

202 statements

Karina Gould, Burlington

Liberal
“I want the House to pass this bill. Big tech companies choose profits over safety and cannot be trusted to fix themselves. This bill creates a commission to fine companies that do not protect users, and it sets age limits on social media to keep children safe.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-34 today. I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg South Centre. This bill is long overdue. This is not the first time this House has tried to legislate to protect children in particular from online harms, but hopefully this time we will get it done. Based on the speeches I have heard from colleagues across parties in the House, it seems like there is finally consensus to protect our children online. When I was preparing for this speech last night, I stumbled across an article in the New York Times. It gave me pause and crystallized for me why it is so crucial that we put this legislation forward and get it right. The article was about a young woman living in the United States who had epilepsy and decided to talk about her medication with ChatGPT. What ended up happening is that ChatGPT counselled her on how to reduce her epilepsy medication and hide it from her doctor, which ultimately led to her death. Bill C-34 deals with chatbots. It deals with AI. We need to ensure that there are protections in place. There are vulnerable people and children using these tools in a way that is harmful to them. This woman’s story is an absolute tragedy and is something that I think all of us want to ensure does not happen again. What it crystallizes for me is that, left to their own devices, these companies cannot be trusted to regulate themselves. We have only to look at the whistle-blowers from Meta, Frances Haugen and Arturo Béjar, who both testified in front of Congress in the United States and said that Facebook and Meta have knowingly not put forward safety mechanisms because they want increased profits. We have heard that when it comes to protecting children, there are studies at Meta showing that young women are particularly vulnerable when it comes to bullying, body image issues and eating disorders, yet consistently they choose profits over safety. We have all heard stories from constituents and people across this country whose children have experienced online harms. Unfortunately, there are cases like that of Amanda Todd, who was so severely cyber-bullied that she ended up taking her own life. We have a responsibility to act in this House. I had the opportunity to meet with her mom, Carol, who has met with many of us in this place over the years and has been asking all of us, as members of Parliament, to act responsibly. Bill C-34 would do just that. It is there to protect our children from online harms and would come forward with a digital safety commission that would make sure the big tech companies are putting in safety by design as their principle. It would have real teeth and a real ability to fine companies that do not uphold their obligations to protect our children. If these things were happening in a playground, it would be unacceptable and the police would be called. There is no reason for these harms to be allowed online. The companies and people who perpetuate them need to be held to account. What I like about the digital safety commission is that it is based on principles, values, laws and protecting our children, but it is flexible for the future. When I hear colleagues say that we need to write these laws right now, I challenge them on it: Do we know what those harms are going to be five, 10 or 15 years from now? I am going to date myself a bit, because my first year of university was the first year that Facebook came out. In 2006, nobody knew that Facebook would become Meta. Nobody knew that Meta would effectively become the Internet in some parts of the world and have the kind of reach and control it does now. We do not know what the next thing is going to be. We do not know exactly how ChatGPT, Claude or any of these AI companies are going to transform our experiences and what existing or new harms they could potentially cause. I am not saying there is nothing good about any of these things. There certainly are. There are ways people connect that are great, but we have an obligation as members of Parliament, as legislators, as citizens, some of us as parents, to make sure we are doing everything we can to protect our children, the children of this country and people in this country from those potential harms. What would be good about the digital safety commission is that, for the first time, we would not just be legislating in the rear-view mirror; it would actually be forward-thinking and would give Canadians the tools to ensure that we can protect against some of these harms. Bill C-34 would also impose an age limit when it comes to social media. In her testimony to Congress, Frances Haugen suggested that, in fact, platforms like Instagram should raise their minimum age from 13 to 16, or even to 18. I think this is a really good step. We know there are age limits for a number of things in this country, whether it is drinking, voting, driving, or being able to buy cigarettes or cannabis. There are always people who are going to get around those age limits, but that does not mean it is not the right thing to do. It gives parents the tools to also help protect their children. A journal for the Canadian Medical Association talks about the fact that when children have constant access to online content, their levels of depression, anxiety and suicidal ideation increase. Just reducing that from three hours a day to one hour a day has incredible benefits for their mental health. It is why the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Mental Health Association, organizations like Unplugged and Raise the Age, Children First Canada and a wide range of pediatricians, etc. support Bill C-34, as it is about providing opportunities for healthy and safe lives for our kids. AI is changing the way in which we interact, just as social media has done over the past 20 years. We need to ensure that, as Canadians, we can take control of what is happening in the online world and have the tools to enforce protections for our children. This is important work that would build off legislation like Bill C-16, which already made it illegal to share content like deepfakes, revenge porn, etc. We need to make sure we are protecting everyone from an image that can go around the world in seconds. As a mom of two young kids who are not quite at the age where they would be engaged in social media, I cannot say how much I want this to pass right now. I talk to young people who tell me about their anxiety, their depression, the challenges and the bullying. They cannot turn social media off. When I was younger, maybe some of these things existed in magazines and we had these kinds of images, but I could put that down. I could put that away, and I could walk outside. When we are connected all the time, there is no escape. Bill C-34 would not solve all the problems. There are always going to be challenges, but this is such an important piece of legislation at this moment in time to do what we can to protect our children, protect future generations and make social media and the Internet a safer place for everyone.

Karim Bardeesy, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

Liberal
“Can the member explain why the new digital safety group needs the power to adapt to new technology?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, my colleague pointed to the flexibility around the digital safety commission. I wonder if she could expound on why it would be important for the digital safety commission to have the powers and the flexibility it needs to adapt to new and emerging technologies.

Karina Gould, Burlington

Liberal
“Technology changes faster than laws can keep up, and we cannot predict every future harm. We need a digital safety commission so we can respond quickly when new online harms appear.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is exactly as I said in my speech. We do not really know what is coming next. We did not predict 20 years ago so many of the harms we are seeing happen right now, and we do not have the laws in place to deal with them. If we are constantly trying to keep up with technology, we are always going to fall behind. Technology is always going to be ahead of what we are legislating, so having a digital safety commission would enable us to have the flexibility and the agility to respond, hopefully in real time, but if not, hopefully quickly enough to actually deal with these harms as they emerge.

Jean-Denis Garon, Mirabel

Bloc Québécois
“Everyone seems to support this bill. But people have real concerns about privacy when they have to show ID to prove their age. I want to know the best way to lower that risk.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I think that there is broad consensus around this bill and that it has unanimous support in the House. Nevertheless, some people have raised concerns about privacy, particularly when people are required to show ID to prove their age. I think those concerns are legitimate. We have to figure out how to strike the right balance between inconvenience and risk reduction. I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on this specific risk. What are the best ways to reduce it?

Karina Gould, Burlington

Liberal
“We can learn from other countries like Australia to make this bill better. I worry about checking people's ages online. We need to talk to experts so we can protect people's privacy and personal information.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. I think we have the advantage of being able to learn from Australia’s experience. We have introduced this bill, but we will also have the opportunity to observe what is happening elsewhere and make improvements. Personally, I have some concerns about age verification technology. Showing a piece of ID is something we have to do in many everyday situations, but we do not do it online. I think we need to talk about it, but we also need to listen to the experts to ensure that privacy and personal information are protected.

Gabriel Hardy, Montmorency—Charlevoix

Conservative
“This bill delays 50 key decisions instead of answering them now. It leaves 19 decisions to a minister and 31 to a group that does not exist yet. Protecting young people online is too important to leave to maybes. We should answer these questions now before passing the bill.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Relevance 0 of 100

    None of this question addressed the preceding speech or the topic under debate.

    See full analysis
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 40 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the bill appears to put off 50 decisions until later. Of those 50 decisions, 19 will be delegated to a minister, and 31 will be referred to a commission that does not exist yet. Given that this bill is so important and so eagerly awaited by Canadians, should we not ensure that these questions already have answers, rather than postponing them and relying on “maybes”, especially when it comes to something as important as protecting our young people online?

Karina Gould, Burlington

Liberal

Linked statement

“We cannot predict how technology will change in the future, just like no one predicted Meta 20 years ago. That is why this bill gives the commission the flexibility to make its own decisions, while still following the clear goals we set for it.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, there will always be factors that we cannot foresee, and I believe it is important to allow the commission to exercise its judgment. As I noted, 20 years ago, no one could have predicted what Meta would become. Likewise, we cannot know what platforms and technologies will look like in five, 10 or 20 years. For that reason, I believe it is important to provide the commission with a degree of flexibility. That said, the principles and objectives that will guide its work have now been clearly established, and that is what matters most.

Ben Carr, Winnipeg South Centre

Liberal
“I want the House to pass this bill. As a former teacher and principal, I know young people face serious dangers online. Parents, students, and child safety experts are asking us to act. This bill will put limits on social media and fine platforms that fail to keep kids safe.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of those I represent in Winnipeg South Centre. I do want to begin by thanking my colleague from Burlington for an exceptional speech. She did a great job of providing a framework and a foundational conceptualization of what we are facing here and why this piece of legislation is so necessary. I have talked often, when I have had the honour of rising in the House, about my time as a teacher. I started as a grade 6 French immersion educator at École Robert H. Smith. I can still remember at 3:30 on the first day of school putting my head down on the table and wondering how I was going to get through it. It turns out I did, and I had the privilege of going on from there to be a high school teacher and a high school principal. It was through about a decade in the public education system that I got to know what mattered to kids, what they were interested in, what they were curious about, what challenges they faced and their opportunities. Of course, by extension, I had the privilege of being able to work with so many of their families as well. I stand here today as well, as a very proud uncle, not only to my own niece through blood, but to so many of my friends’ children, many of whom are growing up now, in an age that looks very different than it did when my colleague from Burlington and I were young. That reality is one that is constantly shifting. The nature of the threats faced in our society, particularly by young people, are more dynamic, they are more sophisticated, and they are more targeted and complicated than they were in the past. By virtue of changes in technology, and the emergence of social media and the strong role that it is playing in our society, we have had to re-evaluate the safeguards that we must put in place as a society to ensure that, while we have access to these incredible technologies that have the potential in so many ways to do good, we are aware of the harms that they can create and are creating. I am mindful of an indigenous scholar named Dr. Martin Brokenleg, whom I studied a bit when I was the principal of a school called Maples Met in Winnipeg. The circle of courage is based on these four ideas of what is important in the lives of young people. They are focusing on mastery, generosity, independence and belonging. In relation to what we are talking about here, it is independence and belonging that are so critical in the frame of Bill C-34. Young people want to belong, and at the same time, they want to be independent. Anyone who is around young people, particularly teenagers, will know that there comes a time when they no longer want mom or dad to drop them off at school in sight of kids, or a time when they want to be able to go to the mall alone with their friends, and they want to have that independence. However, there is a variety of different things out there in the online world in particular, that we ought to be mindful of when we are engaging with young people about that independence that they are seeking. I can remember a superintendent of mine once telling the story of a fight that broke out in the school, and although in the early moments of the fight the kids were all cheering and doing what young teenagers often do when there is a physical altercation, which was ego and bravado taking place, when the principal finally did show up, the students asked what took them so long. In other words, it happens often with young people that, at the same time as they are holding our hand tightly to tell us to stay, they are pulling away from us. This reminds me of the tension that exists in terms of the responsibilities that we have as adults and as lawmakers in our country to provide the guidance, support and love that is necessary for young people to grow and develop into independent young people, while at the same time ensuring that we are responsible for keeping them safe. This brings me to what we have heard in relation to some of the challenges that are ongoing right now vis-à-vis social media and online platforms. I have received calls from countless parents, men and women, regardless of the demographic that they may represent socio-economically, who have called to say that they are scared for what their children are exposed to online, and that they expect the government is going to do something about it. I have received calls from students, many of whom I have met with in the hallways, libraries and theatres of their schools, who have talked about their resistance to social media and to a variety of other online platforms that they feel are actually taking away from the authenticity of their lived experiences. I have heard from experts. Just this past weekend in my office, I was really proud to welcome an expert panel of unbelievable community members to talk about the different challenges we face. I want to take the opportunity to give credit to Dr. Michelle Warren, a clinical psychologist who was there and who spoke about the work she does with young people in particular who are facing anxiety and depression by virtue of some of the harmful things they are exposed to online. There was also Monique St. Germain, who represents the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, which is located in my riding and is something I am very proud of. It is a world leader in eradicating the distribution of illegal and damaging sexual images of children online. It is fully behind the government in terms of its support for the measures embedded in Bill C-34. I was also joined by Cordella Friesen, who serves as the head of the YMCA in Winnipeg. They work with young people on a daily basis and were there to share stories they have heard from folks who use their services. Sharon Labossiere, Colleen Nelson and Laura Thomas are each great educators in their own right who took time to tell us about what they are seeing in schools and who reinforced the need for us to act. The question then becomes what we should do about this. We have heard the calls from parents, from young people and from experts that it is time for us to act. Bill C-34 would do this in a number of ways. One that has often been talked about in the context of this debate and outside the walls of the chamber has to do with placing limitations on social media. I know that there have been some criticisms of other jurisdictions, most noteworthy being Australia, that have taken some steps in order to limit the harms that are being caused by too much time online, and that there have been some instances where young people are finding ways around them. I think my colleague, the member for Burlington, did an excellent job of explaining that notwithstanding those challenges, which of course will evolve over time, they cannot alone be the justification for why we do not start to move forward today. I think ensuring that there is less time spent on these platforms for people at vulnerable ages is going to be very important. I will note that I come from a province that has put a policy in place to ban cellphone use in schools. I have heard overwhelmingly from teachers, principals, parents and young people that this has had a positive impact on their experience in school. I think there is something for us to take from that feedback and from those experiences in relation to Bill C-34. Bill C-34 is also about accountability that would lead to real penalties and that will hold accountable in the way they ought to be held accountable those who are responsible for designing and maintaining unsafe platforms online, which is to say that we would create a regulator. Of course, through a regulatory framework and ongoing dialogue in the chamber and beyond, after the passage, I hope, of this legislation, we would figure out exactly how that would come to be. The important piece is that there would be accountability. Social media platforms and other online platforms that care more about the bottom line than they do about the health, well-being and safety of our children would be held accountable. They would be held accountable not just through the proverbial slap on the wrist but through real financial and other lawful penalties that would send the very strong message that is necessary for them to understand we are serious. I am very proud to be part of a government that is putting forward a bill that would address these serious concerns at a moment in time where it is incumbent upon us, as the Parliament of this wonderful country, to take action that will keep our young people safe.

Alexis Deschênes, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj

Bloc Québécois
“Did the government consult with people before writing this bill? In particular, did it talk to Quebec, which has already done a lot of work on rules for kids using social media?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his contribution to the debate. My question is as follows: Before drafting Bill C‑34, did the government carry out consultations, particularly with Quebec, which has already made significant progress on the issue of regulating access to social media for minors?

Ben Carr, Winnipeg South Centre

Liberal
“This bill is very important. We have talked with parents, children's groups, and mental health groups across Canada. Governments are also continuing to talk with each other. We are working on this bill now and will keep working on the rules that follow.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this is an extremely important bill. There have been conversations across Canada, of course, with parents, with groups representing children and mental health, as well as other stakeholders that have something to say in this context. I cannot speak to which discussions took place between governments, but I certainly know that conversations are ongoing between governments. The people on our side, in the Government of Canada, are developing the bill here and will continue their efforts with the regulations to follow.

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“This bill helps parents and teachers instead of replacing them. Harmful content online shows why we need it. I want the member to share his thoughts on this as a former teacher.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg South Centre brings a very interesting point of view, given his background as an educator and working with young people for as long as he has. It is important that this is not about replacing parents, or anything of this nature. It is something to support the current structure of parents and teachers. However, I believe the need for it, given how the Internet is, and the harmful content out there, is easily justified. Can the member provide his thoughts on that from a teacher’s perspective, possibly?

Ben Carr, Winnipeg South Centre

Liberal
“I support this bill. Young people need to make mistakes and learn from them, but they still need guidance from adults. This bill helps young people explore the world while keeping them safe.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, as I made reference to during my remarks, it is critically important we understand that young people need to go through experiences in life. It is very important, as they develop the skills for independence, that we allow opportunities for them to fall and to learn lessons, sometimes difficult ones, and then to get back up, but of course that has to be done with our love and support. One of the things I noticed in the years I spent in the public education system is that as much as young people feel as though they are capable of moving through the world on their own, they recognize the importance of having that love, support and guidance from the adults in their life, inclusive of their parents of course, but also their teachers, friends and others. This bill is a really important step in the right direction of ensuring that we find the balance between allowing young people to participate in the world around them and making sure we do so in a safe way.

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“This bill has real power because a new digital safety commission could fine companies and enforce the rules. I want my colleague to share his thoughts on why this commission is so important.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that give the legislation teeth is the proposed digital safety commission that would have the power to give fines and make sure the regulations are in fact being enforced in many different ways. I am wondering if my colleague could provide his thoughts on the importance of having a commission, because it would actually provide action.

Ben Carr, Winnipeg South Centre

Liberal
“I support this bill to protect young people online. It must hold social media companies accountable. This law will make sure companies face real consequences if they break the rules.”
  • Reply to a debate question

    Relevance 36 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, one thing the Province of Manitoba has done that I am fully supportive of is that it has created a body that can oversee disciplinary measures for educators. The person who heads that up goes by the name of Noni Classen. Where did she come from? She came from the Canadian Centre for Child Protection. The whole reason the disciplinary board exists is for there to be accountability and for there to be real consequences when inappropriate or unacceptable actions are taken. I see this as no different. It is about protecting young people. However, if it is going to work, it has to be created in a way that ensures that there are consequences. I have full confidence, based on the way the legislation is currently written, and I am sure as the legislation will be strengthened throughout the legislative process, that we will land at a place that will ensure that if a social media company or other online platform is not abiding by the law, as it is written in Bill C-34, they would have a price to pay for that.

Gabriel Hardy, Montmorency—Charlevoix

Conservative
“I want this bill sent to a committee to be changed. We must protect children online, but this bill gives the government too much power and leaves too many decisions for later. Banning social media for kids under 16 will not work on its own, and it leaves out video games. We need rules that help parents make the final decisions, protect people's privacy, and hold the government accountable.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am going to share my time with the member for Cambridge. Every parent in Montmorency—Charlevoix and, I suspect, across all of Quebec and Canada has gone through the same experience. It is 10 p.m. and our teenager’s bedroom door is closed. We see a faint blue light under the door. Sometimes we hear them laughing to themselves, or we hear strange noises from a video. When that happens, every parent starts wondering the same thing. What are they watching? Who are they talking to? We wonder how long they have been online. We also want to know who is on the other side of the screen. I think that is a completely reasonable question to ask. Today, we have to be clear. Phones are not the enemy, but they come with problems and challenges that we have rarely encountered in our lifetimes. In fact, our generation may have no experience with that kind of thing at all, and the generation before us has even less. Few of us here have lived in the kind of world our children are growing up in. This is what Bill C‑34 addresses. We have to be clear from the outset. From the start, we have to be clear about the fact that protecting our children online is non-negotiable. It is not a partisan issue. We all agree on that, and so we should. However, we are not going to give the government carte blanche when it asks for powers in the name of protecting our children. More power for a good reason is how these things always start. Our role as opposition members is to challenge the government, ask questions, seek out the little details hidden in the legislation and make them public knowledge. Two things can be true at once: We have to protect our young people, but we must not close our eyes and hand over unrestricted power. I think we understand that, and parents, of all people, understand that the best. Why is this discussion important right now? It is because things are changing at a pace we have rarely seen before, and the numbers are really heading in the wrong direction. In 2024, the police reported 17,000 cases of online child sexual exploitation. That is four times as many as in 2014. In the span of a decade, there was an exponential increase. Behind each of these cases, there is a child, but there is also a parent who never saw it coming. Let us read this bill the way a parent would read it, and I am going to talk about it the way a parent would, focusing on two questions. Will this really protect my children? For me, that is the first question I ask myself. We can certainly pass laws, but will they really protect children? The second question is this: Who will get to decide? The most prominent provision in Bill C-34 is the proposal to prohibit young people under the age of 16 from having social media accounts. This is what has been highlighted in the media, namely that this is a major initiative to protect young people and that social media is being banned for those under 16. Many parents see this minimum age as the right age to regulate access. In fact, an Angus Reid poll found that three in four Canadians support the measure. That is 75% of the population. However, the poll reveals another very important fact, and that is that 72% of Canadians believe that parents, not the government, are primarily responsible for what teenagers look at on social media and how they use those platforms. Canadians want both. They want something that protects their children, but they also want to have the final say at home. They want clear guidelines, but they want to remain in control. Now let us look at what happened in Australia. My colleagues talked about this earlier today in the House. Australia banned social media for children under the age of 16. This happened last December, so it is a very recent thing. Three months later, Australia’s own online safety regulator found that eight in 10 children were still using at least one platform that had been banned or age-restricted, and more than half of those who had kept their accounts said that no one had checked their age. That does not mean that we should do away with this, but clearly we can look at what other places are doing, draw inspiration from their approach and try to improve on it. If we have a ban that does not work, that does not protect anyone. It just creates a false sense of security. That is what we need to stop doing. We need to stop making laws that only create more bureaucracy. Then there are video games. If we ask a 10-year-old where they meet up with their friends after school, the answer is often online, playing a video game with a live chat feature. That is where the young people talk to one another. However, video game platforms are not covered by this bill. If we lock the door but leave the window open, are we really protecting young people? My second question is one that requires us to really look at the details: Who gets to decide? If we are going to prevent young people under 16 from accessing social media, we will need a way to verify everyone’s age. That means asking everyone for proof of age: me, my grandmother, my grandfather, my parents. We will have to ask all of them how old they are. How exactly will that work? Will people be expected to upload their driver’s licence and send it to companies they have never heard of? Will they have to submit to facial analysis software? This raises questions once again. The bill does not provide the answers. Instead, it says regulations will be made later. We have not yet seen the regulations. What I just talked about is not an isolated example. Under the bill, 50 major decisions will be put off until later, with 19 reserved for the minister responsible and 31 referred to a commission that does not exist yet. Which platforms are covered by the ban? Cabinet will decide that. Moreover, the bill does not currently identify any criteria for that. Which platforms could be exempt? The commission will decide that upon request. The 24-hour deadline for taking down content can be changed by cabinet. That way, a minister can personally choose the time frame. We are told that the ban is temporary, but that is not indicated anywhere in the bill. This commission would draft rules, conduct investigations, hold hearings and impose fines. That is absolute power, and it is not bound by any rule of evidence. Once again, it is total control. This is the kind of detail that is important to raise in bills that have a nice catchy title. Until the other members are appointed, the chair of the commission will make all decisions on their own. Again, there is a problem here. That is not all. Five days after introducing Bill C‑34, the government introduced Bill C‑36, which makes that same commission a super-regulator of personal data, taking that power away from the Privacy Commissioner. Oops. The privacy protection being sold to us in Bill C‑34 is already changing hands in Bill C‑36. This is the kind of detail that deserves to be pointed out in the House, but it does not come up in the speeches touting the bill’s virtues. These details are never mentioned in the big announcements, but they really change things. My questions are not meant to be partisan. I am not saying that this is the Conservative perspective. Other people have raised these same questions. Exactly what powers will the new commission have? That is important to know. When a government asks for more powers in the name of protecting our children, we have every right to read each line of its proposal twice and to ensure the intent really is to protect our children. In this case, I believe the Liberal government has a questionable track record. Now, to be honest, some things in this bill are good. Because I can see the good, I feel entitled to say that I see other things that are not good at all. The bill addresses deepfakes, fake intimate images generated by artificial intelligence. This is something we really do need to take action on. It forces the platforms to identify AI content. Again, that is very good. It does not touch private messaging. That is good. It requires chatbots to intervene when a person is in crisis. That is a must. In her speech, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister said that infinite scroll is a design choice. She was right. The platforms have the ability to make better choices. I think it is up to us to steer them in that direction. Bill C-34 has that to its credit. Ultimately, this is not about platforms or commissions. It is about families. People do not need a commissioner to make decisions for them. Our families, our parents, need tools. They need information. Above all, they need to have the final say. Parents must continue to be responsible for their children. The final decision cannot always be made in an office in Ottawa like the Liberals do. On the contrary, the final decision must be made at kitchen tables in the homes of families in Quebec and Canada. What should we be looking at and working on in committee? I think that is what all parents want to see us do. First, we want to put parents first. We need to work on simple tools and safer default settings. We need to give parents the final say. That is what we should be working on. Second, Parliament is the one that sets the rules. How age is verified and how long the ban lasts are things that should be included in the act, not in regulations that will be voted on later. Third, we need a commission with checks and balances. We want clear limits, transparency and a right of appeal. Fourth, we need to protect our children where they actually are: video games, chatbots and app stores. Our position can be summed up in a few words. We say “yes” to protecting children. That is obvious. We say “no” to placing blind trust in the government. We say “yes” to platforms that are accountable. We say “no” to a commission that is accountable to no one. We say “yes” to security. We say “no” to mass surveillance. We say “yes” to a government that supports parents. We say “no” to a government that wants to take their place. It is important that this bill be referred to committee. We need to hear from parents, doctors, police officers and experts. We need to hear from our young people. We need to be able to invite them before the committee and ask them about their experiences, because that is important. We must get this bill right. Our children deserve a bill that will work for them, and our parents deserve to be trusted.

Steeve Lavoie, Beauport—Limoilou

Liberal
“We need to look after children first. The internet makes parenting harder now than it used to be, and parents need help. Does my colleague agree that parents need the government to set rules to help protect their kids?”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this is an important topic we are discussing today. I am a parent myself. I understand that we may sometimes disagree. In his recommendations, my colleague said that we should look after the parents first. I would say that we need to look after the children first. I have four children. My first was born when I was 20 years old, but the rules were not the same 31 years ago. I look at my son, who is 31 years old today and has three children of his own. When I see social media, I wonder what I would have done 31 years ago. Often, I see that parents need help. My colleague mentioned two polls. One was about parents and the other was about the government. I would argue that they were about both. Does my colleague not agree that parents need the government’s support in setting appropriate rules in order to help them do the best they can?

Gabriel Hardy, Montmorency—Charlevoix

Conservative
“This bill must focus on protecting children. Most Canadians support laws to keep kids safe online, but they also want parents to stay in control. We need to give parents the tools to supervise their children.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that is such a good question that I already answered it in my speech. When I say that children must be the priority in this bill, I mean it. We are doing all this for them. I also pointed out that, according to the Angus Reid poll, 75% of people agree that legislation should be passed to protect our children online, but 72% of people, so roughly the same number, said they want to retain control. We agree with that. We need to give parents the tools to better understand the reality young people are facing. We cannot ask young people what they want, because they are the ones we are trying to protect. We need to ensure that our young people, who are at the heart of our decisions, are protected and that parents have the tools they need to exercise vigilant, effective and judicious supervision in line with the current situation.

Gérard Deltell, Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk

Conservative
“I worry about what children are exposed to on social media when their parents cannot see. I want to ask my colleague what advice he has for the government to help parents handle this.”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 15 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying how much I appreciated the remarks made by my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix earlier in his speech. He touched on an important social challenge that concerns all of us. I have always said that we enter politics because of our parents and that we serve because of our children. The member captured the issue particularly well when he described teenagers coming home at 10 o’clock at night and heading straight to their rooms. Parents can see the light under the door, but they do not really know what is happening on the other side. I am no longer at the stage of life where I am raising children, but I am the grandfather of two little girls, aged four and six. I can honestly say that, throughout this debate, I have been thinking about them. What advice would my colleague offer the government on how to better equip parents to deal with the challenges posed by social media in the 21st century?

Gabriel Hardy, Montmorency—Charlevoix

Conservative
“Children use electronics well, but they do not know the harm it can do to their mental health. Adults need to protect them. The government should give parents the information they need to protect their children, instead of making choices for them.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, it is the new reality. Four-, six-, seven- or eight-year-old children are sometimes more adept with electronics than adults. Sometimes parents and grandparents do not know how to help young people. It is not about controlling them. It is about helping them. The child does not know that he or she is going down a road that is going to hurt them in the long run, that will put their mental health at risk. It is up to us to take responsibility for them. How do we do that? We do it by equipping parents, by having informed parents, by keeping parents in the equation, not taking parents out of the equation by saying that the government will make the decisions. We see that here all the time. The Liberals rise in the House and say how proud they are to intervene in everything and that more and more people need Liberal subsidies to get by. We want people to be free to make their own choices. It is important for parents to have access to information so they can make the right decisions for their children.

Steeve Lavoie, Beauport—Limoilou

Liberal
“We all want to help parents. What specific tools can we give them right now that will actually work?”
  • Question or comment in debate

    Signal 41 of 100

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

    See full analysis
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I think that we are all here for the right reasons. We are all facing the same challenges. I also agree on the issue of how we can help parents. My colleague mentioned tools earlier. I would like him to elaborate on that. We have been talking non-stop this evening. Does my colleague have any specific ideas that could be effective and that could really help parents right away?

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 157

  1. Oral Questions Finance 12 statements
  2. Oral Questions Intergovernmental Relations 6 statements
  3. Oral Questions Finance 4 statements
  4. Oral Questions Intergovernmental Affairs 6 statements
  5. Oral Questions Finance 10 statements
  6. Oral Questions Steel and Aluminum Industry 13 statements
  7. Oral Questions Natural Resources 6 statements
  8. Oral Questions The Economy 8 statements
  9. Oral Questions Labour 2 statements
  10. Oral Questions Parks Canada 2 statements
  11. Oral Questions Labour 2 statements
  12. Oral Questions Taxation 8 statements
  13. Private Members' Business Points of Order 2 statements
  14. Oral Questions Finance 6 statements
  15. Government Orders Safe Social Media Act 23 statements
  16. Private Members' Business Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Act 7 statements
  17. Government Orders Safe Social Media Act 202 statements
  18. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements
  19. Adjournment Proceedings Adjournment Proceedings 4 statements