“The member did not answer my question. Young LGBTQ people in rural areas use social media to find support and community. In Australia, a law like this pushed kids off safe sites and onto the dark web. This bill does not explain how to stop that, and it leaves out gaming platforms where a lot of abuse happens. I want real answers on these problems.”

“Madam Speaker, again, I just want to point out that my colleague opposite actually did not answer the question. She did not talk about what resources would be available to young sexual minorities in rural communities who might use, with appropriate safeguards, certain types of social media to find resources and find community. She did not answer that question and that is a concern in her riding that she failed to be accountable for. We know from Australia what has happened with its very similar legislation is that this has actually pushed kids off safe spaces and into the dark web. The bill is silent on how the government would handle that. In fact, it is asking Parliament to devolve a lot of power into regulation without answering some of these key questions. Also, the bill does not include some of the most pernicious places that have a lack of online safety, like gaming platforms. Why would my colleague be silent on the types of resources that would be removed from young sexual minorities in her riding? Why would she be silent and not provide more details or scrutiny on the fact that certain types of platforms where we know this type of abuse happens, like gaming platforms, are not included in this bill?”

“Children face real dangers online, but this bill is not the right way to protect them. It leaves major choices to cabinet and unelected officials instead of Parliament. It does not explain how people will prove their age, how privacy will be protected, or if kids will just move to darker corners of the internet. My own bill is a better choice to keep kids safe while protecting people's privacy.”

“Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Brampton West. Our need to provide better safeguards to protect children online is real. In fact, just to illustrate this point, one in four Canadian youth aged 12 to 17 has experienced some sort of online harm. Police reported online sexual exploitation reached 16,905 incidents in 2024, and this rate has risen under the Liberal government 347% in the last decade. Parents are trying to provide some safeguards for their kids online, but they are also asking for our help. Any approach that we take to provide these safeguards should support parents while also protecting both their rights and their children’s rights, and parents’ right to determine how their child becomes a digital citizen while ensuring that environment is safe and also looking at the privacy and speech rights for Canadians. The question that we should be looking at in this House is not whether we should act, but how and whether this bill is sufficient or if it is asking us to undertake measures that devolve powers that we as parliamentarians have, for vague assurances that really deserve answers from the government. I have a lot of questions with this bill, and I am going to start with the matter that we were just debating in the previous section, which is the ban on social media accounts. My first question relates to the best practice that we have already seen as Australia has rolled out similar provisions. We have seen that most kids at the age of 16 still had accounts months later. Harm complaints did not meaningfully decline. In fact, teens turned to VPNs, shared family log-ins or simply lied about their age. The ban did not actually do anything. With regard to this aspect of Bill C-34, the questions I would have are the following. If a teenager is pushed off a large platform that has a well-established trust, safety team and system, where do they go, because they are going to go somewhere, and has the government been seized with this question, particularly knowing that other jurisdictions have already had this experience? Are they going to smaller, unmoderated corners of the Internet where their parents cannot see them and has the government thought about whether this measure may push vulnerable kids somewhere darker on the Internet? How will the government measure to know whether this is working? The government has been silent on these issues. This deserves much more scrutiny because of how the bill proposes that the ban would work. A platform could apply to the new commission that is proposed in the bill for an “exemption” if it shows “adequate safeguards”. Adequate by what standard, set by whom and when? The bill is silent on these things. If the largest platforms could win exemptions, is this a ban or is it a negotiation between a regulator, not elected officials, and big tech held outside of this chamber? I have a problem with that. If safeguards exist that are good enough to earn an exemption, why not write them in law for every platform today? These are questions the government has not answered, and I suspect that it is facing internal questions within its caucus on this issue as well. Bill C-34 sets out the general types of services it would cover, social media, livestreaming, adult content platforms and AI chatbots, but the exact test for which specific services count as a regulated social media service is left to regulations to be written later. Parliament is being asked to pass a bill before knowing where that line falls. That decision would be made by cabinet, not by this House, so we are being asked to devolve that power. In fact, the ban itself would not be automatic through this law. It would only apply to the platforms that cabinet later chooses to name in regulation. We should probably be having that debate in Parliament. Additionally, many types of the severe dangers children face online, like grooming and sextortion, happen on gaming platforms and chat services. Would those be covered under this bill? It does not seem like it. The government may say that cabinet can add new categories of services, but why is that being left to regulation? Why are we not having that debate now? I would like to know why the government is silent on this and if it is being silent for a reason. Is it because of lobbying or is it because existing safeguards are good enough or it does not think that it can make privacy work or because the bill is not technology agnostic? Those are all questions that the government should be able to answer. The bill is also quiet on how age verification would be done. Those details would also be left to regulations, and that raises big questions for me. Will Canadians be asked, for example, to provide a driver’s license to access social media? Australia’s law specifically says that no one can be forced to hand over a government ID to prove their age, yet the bill is silent on that matter. Bill C-34 is also silent on the use of third party vendors, which platforms often hire to run age verification checks. How would the government make sure that those vendors do not reuse that data, and how would an operator destroy that data while also keeping the records the bill requires to prove it complied? Protecting kids should never, ever require every adult to hand over their identity to the government, and the bill is silent on these matters. Much scrutiny needs to be paid to the amount of regulatory power that the bill would hand over to a body that does not yet exist. Independent analysts have counted roughly 50 major decisions left to cabinet and the new commission after Parliament votes on the bill. Questions like which services are covered, what age verification is adequate, what counts as safe design, how complaints are judged and who gets an exemption remain unanswered. These questions deserve answers, because these make up the substance of the law. When Parliament passes this frame but leaves the substance of what could amount to limitations on speech and privacy to regulation, we are opening the door to a process where well-resourced tech lobbyists and unelected bureaucrats would have a seat at the table and parliamentarians who are elected to make these decisions would not, and these are not minor decisions. The commission outlined in the bill would be the rule-maker, investigator, enforcer and judge. It would have a wide variety of powers that it could use to compel information, and its members would be appointed by cabinet, so these would essentially be political appointees. Also, until enough are appointed, the chairperson alone could make these decisions, and that deserves further scrutiny and debate as well. Would these regulations come back to the House or a committee before they take effect? I do not think they would. I think that deserves scrutiny. The only review in the bill would be done by the minister, not by a committee of the House, and not until three years after it would take effect. There are so many other questions. Where would a small operator go if it is fined? Why should unelected bureaucrats, rather than members accountable to Canadians, set the boundaries of online safety? There are ways that we could be having that discussion here today, but the government has again chosen to try to get us to devolve powers to regulators without answering some pretty fundamental questions around efficacy, like whether this would actually work and keep kids safe online and whether it would protect speech. I have tried to stand in this place like Cassandra, for years, saying that we have a problem, and the government has been slow to act. As an individual member, I have spent years writing legislation. I tabled a revised bill, Bill C-216, which had a prescribed legislative duty of care for online operators. It is more tech-agnostic and also more clear in terms of what the powers are. It would also give more options to parents on how they curate their children’s digital experience as they become digital citizens. Also, Bill C-216 is designed to keep pace with technologies like artificial intelligence, and I have questions about whether Bill C-34 can do that. The last thing I will say is that my bill would clearly protect privacy. It would require operators to use age detection technology that they already use to target ads, with further privacy safeguards, rather than collecting IDs, and it would expressly prohibit using a digital ID. I am wondering why the government took this approach, which has failed in previous legislation, and once again listened to bureaucrats. We know that parents need these safeguards, but given that the government has presented a bill that deserves so much scrutiny, I worry that it is going to lead to constitutional challenges down the road from regulations that perhaps have not been fully scrutinized here. The government has a lot of explaining to do. There is a lot of detail that needs to be filled in by the government to ensure that kids are kept safe online and that Canadians’ privacy and speech are protected.”

“The government delayed action on online safety for years and ignored my bill, which already had the answers. Now it brings forward bills with no details that Canadians oppose. Canadians want their kids safe online. The government must answer whether this bill will actually work, and whether it will protect Canadians' privacy and free speech.”

“Madam Speaker, I will counter my colleague with this: Why did the government not use my bill, which I wrote as a private member, in spite of it having 800,000 bureaucrats who could have done the job for it years ago? Why is the government so insistent on putting detail-free bills in the House of Commons? Why does the government presuppose that, in order to protect kids online, Canadians have to go forward without answers to questions? I put forward a bill almost three years ago that answered the questions I asked today. The government could have stolen that bill. I had hoped it would. I have said that many times. The reality is that the government did not, and we are sitting here today because it has put forward bad iterations of legislation that Canadians have opposed. Canadians want their kids kept safe online. They know that the government has dragged its feet in putting forward legislation that does that. I think it is incumbent upon the government to answer questions on whether or not this bill will actually work and whether it will keep Canadians’ speech and privacy safe online.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The member is wrong about what I said. My past bill was short and clearly explained the rules for online companies. The government could have written a clear bill with answers in it. Instead, they want unelected officials to make these decisions with tech giants. I want the government to answer my questions before this bill moves forward.”

“I do not know about you, Madam Speaker, but I sure do not like it when a man tells me what I said when I did not say it. I am sure you would sympathize with that. What I have said in the past is that my bill was a starting point three years ago, and it is not 1,500 pages; it is about 30 pages. It clearly outlines the duty of care that online operators would have. What the Liberals and the minister are saying is that all of the hundreds of thousands of bureaucrats we have could not possibly have written a bill that tells Canadians exactly what the bill would do. They could not possibly have done that. They are asking Parliament to devolve the power we have to unelected bureaucrats who would be making these decisions at the table with tech giants. That is what they are asking for, and I am saying no. The residents of Calgary Nose Hill want answers. I am asking these questions because it was entirely possible for the government to have a bill that had answers in it. The member is wrong and he knows it. He has been around long enough. I will not have that man try to say that I said something that I did not. That is preposterous. However, I will demand answers on behalf of my constituents, because this matters and we have to get it right. If we do not answer these questions, we will not.”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Respect 94 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “The member is wrong and he knows it.”.

  See full analysis →

“This bill creates a commission with too much power and not enough accountability. It would make rules, investigate, enforce, prosecute, and hold secret hearings. The government needs to explain this better, and we need to look closely at these powers.”

“Madam Speaker, I am just going to look at the bill. The proposed commission would have sweeping powers with little accountability. It would serve as a super-regulator. It would act as rule-maker, investigator, enforcer and prosecutor, and have hearings in secret. I want to know what that means, and it deserves a lot of scrutiny. The government should have put that in the bill.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

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

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

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

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

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 47 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“This bill does not cover gaming sites like Roblox, where a lot of online harms happen to kids. Conservatives proposed a bill that covered more. I want to know why the government brought forward a bill with so few details, and why it lets rich tech lobbyists decide the rules instead of Parliament.”

“Madam Speaker, the minister asked my colleague a question about keeping kids safe online, yet we know there are platforms where a big bulk of the stats she mentioned occurred and that would not be covered under this bill, such as Roblox, for example, and other online gaming platforms. Conservatives delivered a bill that would have had much more robust coverage and be technology agnostic. I wonder if my colleague understands why the government has put forward such a detail-free bill if it wants to keep kids safe online. Why would it leave all these regulations to be negotiated by rich tech company lobbyists and not by parliamentarians?”

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

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

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

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

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

“Social media harms children, and parents cannot control hidden algorithms or big tech companies. How does this bill help parents protect their kids?”

“Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned mental health, anxiety and other harms that are happening to our kids and our children. Parents have the greatest responsibility for protecting their children, but parents cannot control hidden algorithms or the decisions high-tech billionaire companies are taking with regard to these platforms that are available to everyone. How would Bill C-34 empower parents so that they can protect their children?”