“I want the House to pass this bill and make it stronger. My constituents want rules to keep children and seniors safe online. This includes setting an age limit of 16 for social media and cracking down on fake images and scams made by AI.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me to stand to speak to Bill C-34, the safe social media act. In my capacity as the very proud member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre, this issue is extremely important and personal to me as a parent. I have a 14-year-old son and a 10-year-old daughter, so I am in the thick and thin of social media and smart devices like cellphones and iPads, making sure that I am continuously engaged with my children when it comes to issues around the safe use of social media. Probably one of the biggest issues that I hear from my constituents on a regular basis, especially those who are parents or grandparents, is how to ensure that we have safe access to social media. I am sure members will agree with me that AI comes up in pretty much every single conversation nowadays. People want to ensure that there are strong regulations to monitor all these things. As a result of the many conversations I had with my constituents over several months, and I am sure all of us know of the barbecues and different events that take place, I took the liberty of sending a mailer to my constituents, a questionnaire specifically on Bill C-34, the safe social media act, asking them some really important questions so they could help guide me, and hopefully all of us, on how best to navigate this important issue and on the important features that my constituents would like to see in the legislation. What I asked in this questionnaire, which I sent to all the residents in my riding of Ottawa Centre, were questions like, “How should the government prioritize keeping young Canadians safe online?” and “As the government implements the legislation, what should it prioritize and how?” I also asked my constituents the question, “Which online harms concern you most for the young people in your lives?” We also asked for their experience in online safety and, more specifically, questions concerning the proposed age restriction for social media accounts, which is suggested in the legislation to be 16 plus. First of all, I want to thank all my constituents for so enthusiastically writing on this issue. Not only did they send the mailer back after filling out the questions, but they went online, because we had a Google Forms questionnaire available, and participated. They have approached me on the streets and at community events to talk about this as well. I think a few things really came out of that. There is, as I mentioned earlier, a strong concern as to the safe use of social media. People really want government to step forward and bring in regulations, controls and monitoring so that social media is safe, especially for children, but for seniors as well. I got a very strong sense that there is support for legislation like Bill C-34 from my constituents of Ottawa Centre. One of the key reasons is that people want to protect our children and want legislation. They want Parliament and the government to take steps in that regard. There is also support for a restriction on the use of social media until age 16. I got a very good sense, from the survey results we got back and from my conversations, that people want to make sure there is some sort of age limitation on who can use social media, and 16 seems to be the right age. I will say that if we talk to young people, there is push-back on that, including from my 14-year-old, who understands the benefits and harms around social media but has probed me as to why the age is 16. I think the most important issue that has come up in my conversations is how we are going to regulate that. It is one thing to say we will restrict the use of or access to social media to 16-year-olds. The question then becomes how we are going to enforce that rule. There is an understanding that young people being young people, they will find ways to get around it. Of course, everybody is looking at places such as Australia in that regard. I think an important element that, as legislators, we should be focused on throughout this legislation is how best to enforce the rule, because people want a rule like that in place but also want to ensure that it is not just a rule on paper. They want effective implementation and enforcement of the rule as well. That is why I personally like the idea that we would not just be putting a blanket ban, so to speak, in the legislation. There would be a provision that, if certain standards are met to ensure that there is safe social media, those platforms may be allowed to operate. I think there is a better path, compared to the one in jurisdictions such as Australia, embedded in this legislation, which would allow for access to social media as long as certain standards are met that would ensure that the information our kids have access to is safe. The second point I want to raise, which is something I said at the outset, is that there is a huge concern around AI and its content, the nature of information that is available. Misinformation and disinformation continue to come up in the conversation, and we saw that in the survey documents we received. There is a very significant concern about misleading information that is AI-manipulated and about content that has been altered through AI. I think it would be an understatement if I said that deepfake images and videos are a serious concern that people are grappling with. I heard about this through the consultation process I did in my community. People want assurances that we are taking the necessary steps to make sure that deepfake images and videos are regulated, are monitored and are not allowed, because there are some serious concerns. There are serious concerns from seniors in this regard. I know that much of the focus of the bill is toward young people and teenagers, but there are some serious concerns in our communities on the part of seniors as well who are being exposed to information that looks awfully close to being real. They are concerned about whether information is accurate or not and whether they have been taken advantage of. There are scams being developed. We know that our seniors are quite vulnerable to those kind of scams, frauds, phishing expeditions, etc. There is a real concern from the elderly constituents in my riding of Ottawa Centre on this issue. I think the legislation has a lot of important elements. I am supportive of the legislation and would ask my colleagues of the House to support it as well. I think it would address a very important issue. We know that social media has become ubiquitous in our lives. It is omnipresent. We all rely on it, but there is no control over the content and the algorithm, and it is having a serious impact on our children. I continue to meet a number of parents, including representatives of organizations now led by parents, who are advocating that kids should not have access to all those things. This is a valid concern. As a parent, I am concerned about it. I am really happy that, as parliamentarians, we are addressing this important issue. I want to thank all my constituents in Ottawa Centre for taking the time to fill out the survey we circulated and for giving me this important information so I can be a strong champion for their point of view. We need to make sure the legislation not only passes but would actually be stronger and would protect our children.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 5 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →

“We should not name specific platforms like Facebook or Instagram in this bill. Companies and technology change over time. The law needs to focus on stopping online harms, and the regulator will make sure the rules keep doing that.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her very thoughtful comment and feedback on this important issue. I will start by saying that naming specific platforms may be problematic because legislation needs to be agnostic. What we really need to focus on is the technology and the algorithms that continue to evolve. Some companies, such as Facebook and Instagram, that exist today may not exist tomorrow. We need to write a piece of legislation that passes the test of time, so to speak, so I think our focus really should be on the harms and how to reduce their impact. That is why the regulator would be really important, because it could do the analysis to ensure that the regulations would address the harms we are trying to address here.”

• Reasons given
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Reasoning 100 of 100

  This statement drew 3 conclusions and gave a reason for each one.

  See full analysis →

“Setting the age limit at 16 means nothing if we do not enforce it. We already enforce age limits for driving, alcohol, and tobacco, so we know how to do it. I want us to work together to make sure this bill actually enforces the age rule properly.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for those very important questions. The second question is the one I was trying to address. It is one thing to say that the age is 16, but the enforcement of the rule is extremely important. That is one of the conversations I have had with my constituents that came up again and again. We can set up a lot of rules, but if the rules are not followed or enforced, they become meaningless. That is a concern I bring. I want to make sure the legislation would have a meaningful way of addressing that concern. I think that ideas and suggestions from all of us would make that happen. We do not want to create a black market, so to speak, for young people to find a back door to get to these types of things. We all have been young, and we know how creative we could be if we wanted something. However, this is not a new experience for us. There are restrictions on the use of alcohol and tobacco, on driving, and those types of things, so we know how to do this right and should think about how we can enforce the age of 16 thoroughly to get it right.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 43 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Young people in my riding told me they want stricter rules for social media. They said it is good for them to spend less time online. I want to know if young people in Ottawa Centre told their member of Parliament the same thing.”

“Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague from Ottawa Centre. I really appreciated the fact that he reached out to his constituents in different ways. I have done the same thing in my riding. I talked to the youth council, for instance. Young people in my riding told me that they strongly support stricter regulations governing the use of social media. They also talked about the many benefits of not being constantly active on social media. I would like to know whether my colleague has done similar research with young people. How do the youth in his riding feel about regulations governing social media?”

“I talked to young people about social media rules. Some want strict rules and help from the government to stay safe, but others want to be left alone. We need to find the right balance to stop the harms of social media.”

“Mr. Speaker, I also spoke with my youth council on this important issue. What is funny is that there is a group of young people who do want strict regulations because they believe there are concerns with respect to social media. They want to be responsible users, and they want help from government regulators. Then there are other young people who want us to leave them alone. We need to find the right balance and the enforcement that would help reduce the harms regarding social media.”

• 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 agree with the member. As a parent, I worry about how much data social media collects on our children. Kids also need more time outside. What are other parents saying about this?”

“Mr. Speaker, I was listening closely to the member opposite’s speech, and as a parent of an 18-year-old and a 20-year-old, I really agree with pretty much everything that he had to say here. That is a rare occurrence in this House. One of the things that I think about quite often is that my kids grew up with social media from day one, so the amount of data and information that has been collected from their lives when they are posting and when they are contributing on those platforms is really concerning. We see dystopian movies where targeted ads follow people around. I think some of the members’ comments about unstructured play, getting outside and touching grass are also really important for youth. I would like to know his comments on what he is hearing from other parents.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Question or comment in debate

  Signal 43 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 →

“I want the House to pass this bill to protect children online. Social media companies have failed to keep kids safe on their own. This bill sets a minimum age of 16 for social media accounts, forces platforms to quickly delete abusive images, regulates AI chatbots, and fines companies that break the rules. It does not monitor private messages or limit free speech. We need to pass it and study the details at committee.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the safe social media act. This topic holds considerable interest for many people in my riding of La Prairie—Atateken. I sincerely thank everyone who shared their views with me. I want to start by addressing a reality that is quite familiar to families in my riding. In Candiac, Saint‑Constant, Kahnawake and other communities across the country, the first thing that many young people see on a screen in the morning and the last thing they see at night is an app. These services have real and undeniable benefits. They provide information, bring people closer together, and offer an outlet for creativity. However, they also expose our children to risks that we would never tolerate in other circumstances. The numbers are clear: One in four young people aged 12 to 17 say they have been cyber-bullied. Reports to police concerning online child sexual exploitation are increasing dramatically. In 2023‑24, the RCMP received over 100,000 reports in Canada alone in a single year. Young people harmed in this way are much more likely to suffer from mental health issues, including suicidal ideation. Fourteen years ago, Amanda Todd took her own life because she was a victim of sextortion and cyber-bullying. Since then, two bills addressing online harm have died on the Order Paper. Victims and their families tell us that they have waited too long, and they are right. For a time, we hoped that the companies would take the necessary steps to keep our youth safe, but Canadians’ trust has eroded. Their voluntary action has never kept pace with the scale, speed and severity of the harm caused. In addition to individuals’ predatory behaviour, there are also design flaws, algorithmic recommendations, autoplay and infinite scroll. These are engineering choices that amplify harmful content. Worse still, today, AI chatbots are forming unhealthy, sustained relationships with young people, sometimes during the most difficult times of their lives. Tumbler Ridge is one example. Bill C-34 is based on a simple principle: The people who design these services must be held accountable for the risks they create. The bill establishes two pieces of legislation: the digital safety act and the digital safety commission of Canada act. Allow me to outline their key provisions. First, there is a duty to protect children. All regulated services will be required to integrate safe design features and implement age restrictions. As for social media, the government has provided that children must be at least 16 years old to have an account. However, the commission can grant exceptions to platforms that demonstrate that they have implemented and maintained sufficient protections for children. In other words, we are not closing the door. We are setting a standard. Access to pornographic content must also be restricted using adequate age verification and age estimation measures. This responds to a call for action from our communities. In the spring, digital entrepreneurs and experts from Quebec, including some from my riding, launched an online initiative called AgeStandard, which calls for the enforcement of the 16-year-old age limit on social media. Thousands of people have signed the petition. Their message is simple: A check box has never protected a child. They are right. Second, there is a duty to remove two types of content that do not belong anywhere: child sex abuse material and intimate images shared without consent, including sexual deepfakes. Social media platforms will be required to make such content inaccessible within 24 hours of it being flagged or reported, through a notice and appeal process. For a victim, every hour counts. Third, there is a duty to act responsibly. Platforms will have to mitigate the risk of exposure to seven categories of harmful content, including content that induces a child to harm themselves, content used to bully a child, content that foments hatred, content that incites violence, and violent extremism content. They will have to provide simple tools for blocking, reporting and labelling synthetic content, and a readily available resource person. Fourth, the bill establishes rules governing AI chatbots. If I am not mistaken, this is a world first. As soon as a user expresses suicidal thoughts or the intention to self-harm or hurt others, the service must immediately interrupt its interaction with the user and direct the user toward crisis intervention services that permit the user to interact with a human being. The chatbot may not pose as a human being or a professional, nor use manipulative engagement techniques to maintain an emotional attachment that causes the user to withdraw socially. Fifth, the bill provides for greater transparency. Each regulated service must submit a digital safety plan containing information on the risks, the measures implemented and their effectiveness. Accredited researchers will be able to access the data. The days when platforms had to be taken at their word are over. Lastly, the digital safety commission of Canada will be created and equipped with real technical expertise to develop standards, conduct audits, receive public complaints and impose penalties. Penalties for violations could be up to 3% of gross global revenue or $10 million. Convictions on indictment could lead to fines of up to 5% or $20 million, whichever is greater. For companies of this size, this is what sets a recommendation apart from a requirement. Colleagues in this House, experts and citizens have raised serious concerns that deserve to be examined. First, there is a concern about freedom of expression. In my opinion, freedom of speech is not affected. For example, this bill does not apply to private messaging. It does not require platforms to proactively monitor everything that is being posted. It concerns these services’ design and risk management. That is a fundamental difference. We have also heard concerns about privacy and age verification. I share those concerns. Nobody here wants Canadians to have to hand over a piece of ID to watch a video. Where necessary, this verification should be done automatically. It will need to be properly regulated. This is something the committee will need to look at closely, particularly with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada. I also want to acknowledge the sustained effort put in by Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne, whose bill, Bill S-209, has passed in the Senate and is now before the House. It aims to restrict young people’s access to online pornography. Both bills have the same goal, and I hope the work done in committee will result in a consistent set of clear rules on age verification, rather than trying to impose two parallel systems on the same platforms. There is a way to do just that. Some have said that too many details are being left to the regulations. That is a valid criticism, but as we know, technology evolves faster than we legislate. That is why it makes sense to enshrine the principles, obligations and penalties in law and to entrust the technical details to an expert body that can adapt as needed. There will be an opportunity at the committee stage to clarify what needs to be in the legislation itself. Lastly, efforts are also under way elsewhere. The National Assembly of Quebec examined the effects of screen time on young people and focused on the role of schools and on support for families. Our bill addresses this issue by seeking to regulate global platforms. This is where the federal Parliament has a role to play. Platforms have a duty toward the children who use them, and that duty must be enshrined in law. I sincerely believe that the safety of our children is non-negotiable, as the minister said earlier. The survivors have issued a call to us: If this bill is intended to build a safer digital future, then let it be built together with them. I urge all my colleagues to heed this call.”

• Echo ×6

  A repeated line

  “Content that induces a child to harm themselves.”

  Said 6 times by 6 members since October 28.

  Every time it was said →

“We can check users' ages by scanning facial features without collecting their personal information. Protecting people's rights must come first. We can make sure this bill respects our rights when we study it in committee.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question, and I thank my colleague for asking it. I am a big believer in technological advances. The AgeStandard initiative that I mentioned earlier is suggesting that age verification be done by analyzing facial features, without seeking to identify the individual, or in other words, an automated age verification process that does not collect any personal information. That is just one example of what could be used. I think that members will have the opportunity in committee to examine charter compliance, which must always come first. I think it is possible to do that with Bill C-41 and the charter.”

• 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 this bill. Quebec is dealing with screens in schools and health, but the federal government needs to set rules for global online platforms. We should give these platforms a chance to fix the problems themselves, and step in with age checks only if they fail to act. Most people in Quebec want this.”

“Mr. Speaker, I think the two approaches are complementary. I have been watching the work of the Quebec National Assembly. It has focused on the effects of screen use in school, how families can better support their children, and specific health and education issues. I believe that Bill C‑41 addresses problems created by global platforms. I also believe the federal government has a fundamental role to play in establishing appropriate standards while giving platforms an opportunity to adapt. If they do so, then there will be no need for age verification. If they do not, I think it is our duty to intervene. I think this approach is in line with what almost all Quebeckers want.”

“This bill makes anything that is illegal in the real world illegal online too. How can we make sure people follow our laws?”

“Mr. Speaker, this bill does something very important: Anything that is currently illegal in the real world will also be illegal in the digital world. How can we ensure compliance with our laws?”