House of Commons Hansard #157 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was online.

Topics

line drawing of robot

This summary is computer-generated. Usually it’s accurate, but every now and then it’ll contain inaccuracies or total fabrications.

Statements by Members

Question Period

The Conservatives focus on the costs of Liberal deficits and spending, arguing they fuel inflation and higher interest rates that burden families. They criticize the fuel standard tax, citing its impact on food and fuel costs, and challenge the government’s debt and accounting. They also press for action to protect Hamilton steelworkers, lift the tanker ban, and restore Banff’s search-and-rescue K9 program.
The Liberals tout strong growth and fiscal indicators while emphasizing affordability benefits, tax cuts and support for families. They highlight aid for steelworkers facing U.S. tariffs, promote energy and pipeline projects, and defend Bill C-39’s approach to collective bargaining. They also stress closer ties with the European Union.
The Bloc criticize the Prime Minister for excluding Quebec’s premier from the Canada–EU summit, arguing Quebec should have a voice on matters within its jurisdiction and in its international relations. They contrast this with the government’s honours for the UAE and engagement with Turkey, despite human rights concerns.
The NDP urge Liberals to repeal section 107 and protect workers’ right to strike, opposing Bill C-39’s limits on labour rights.

Bill C-41—Proposal to Apply Standing Order 69.1 Conservative MP Andrew Lawton asks the Speaker to divide Bill C-41 into separate votes on MAID eligibility for people with mental illness and advance requests for people who later lose capacity. 1400 words, 10 minutes.

Petitions

Safe Social Media Act Second reading of Bill C-34. The bill would establish online safety duties for social media and chatbot services, require safeguards for children under 16, speed removal of specified harmful content, and create a commission to oversee compliance and penalties. Liberal speakers say it supports families and addresses risks such as exploitation, bullying and harmful algorithms; Conservatives and the Green Party support examining protections but raise concerns about privacy, enforcement, exemptions and decisions deferred to future regulations. 61200 words, 7 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.

Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Act Second reading of Bill S-209. The bill requires commercial pornography websites to use age-verification or age-estimation measures to restrict minors’ access, with safeguards for personal privacy and penalties for non-compliance. Members broadly support its goal of protecting children, while the government also points to related online-safety legislation. The House passes the bill at second reading and refers it to committee. 6600 words, 45 minutes.

Adjournment Debates

Grocery affordability Tamara Kronis says rising food prices and food bank use demand lasting relief, and presses Ryan Turnbull for measurable targets and public reporting on whether the $1-billion food-link fund lowers costs, especially on Vancouver Island. Turnbull points to federal food-security investments, local infrastructure and shorter supply chains, arguing these build resilience and address food insecurity over time.
Parks Canada cuts William Stevenson warns that Parks Canada workforce reductions and the planned end of Banff’s search-and-rescue dog program threaten public safety and essential park services. Ryan Turnbull defends the cuts as part of a broad spending review, citing fiscal savings and tax reductions. Stevenson asks the government to reinstate the rescue dog program, but Turnbull offers no commitment.
Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Bill C-34 Safe Social Media ActGovernment Orders

8:30 p.m.

Toronto—St. Paul's Ontario

Liberal

Leslie Church LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Secretaries of State for Labour

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from University—Rosedale for splitting her time with me.

A little less than a year ago, in December 2025, I visited the Hospital for Sick Children, or SickKids, as we know it in Toronto and across Canada. It has been called the world's best children's health care centre. It is 150 years old. That day last December, I met with seven researchers and pediatricians on staff. They are working as part of a new child health policy accelerator. It is an encounter that has stuck with me ever since. They told me what their number one concern for children's health was, which was not what I had expected standing in the wing of a children's hospital.

They sat me down and said their number one concern today was social media and the harms they were witnessing every day in the digital space. They were proverbially ringing the alarm on something they were witnessing with nearly every child, family and condition that came through their doors, whether it was childhood eating disorders, mental health, substance abuse, self-harm, cyber-bullying, cyber-hate, anxiety, sleep disorders or developmental impacts. This was the reality they described in having to open a dedicated clinic, the Lotus Health Clinic, to respond to the harms they were seeing from online child trafficking and grooming.

As a mother of three kids, I find that hard to hear. These are people who care for children through some of the most difficult moments of their lives. When they raise an alarm like that, we need to listen. Like any parent, I want all of our children to be healthy and happy. I want them to grow up feeling comfortable in themselves, have good friends and know they can find help when something is wrong. However, parents cannot see everything happening on a child's screen, and we cannot be expected to understand every algorithm deciding what appears there next.

In my work as Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for Children and Youth, I have met with youth organizations across the country and made young people's well-being a priority. I bring that responsibility and my perspective as a parent to this debate. The evidence that SickKids shared is clear. Its report cites a Canadian study in which 57% of children aged six to 10 had frequent exposure to social media. That is ages six to 10. We are talking about children in elementary school.

The consequences go beyond time spent on a device. SickKids points to survey findings that one in five teens has experienced bullying or harassment online, and 47% of young people aged 15 to 19 report negative experiences from social media use. Behind those numbers are children losing sleep, feeling anxious or carrying something frightening that they have not told anyone about.

A few days ago, SickKids and a group of organizations, including the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Paediatric Society and the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, launched a campaign for safer online spaces called Six Clicks. The campaign draws attention to how platforms are designed with features that push kids toward extreme or harmful content in six clicks or less. This is not accidental or serendipitous. It is deliberate. It is designed to capture attention. It is not about choice. It is about addiction and monetization.

Infinite scrolling, autoplay, push notifications, unsafe defaults, weak and hard-to-find safeguards, manipulative gaming and commercial features are the tactics that in almost any other consumer space, we would scrutinize and regulate. This is the reality our government is responding to with Bill C-34, the safe social media act.

Its starting point is straightforward: The global companies profiting from these services must take responsibility for the risks and the social harms that their products create. Canadian families and children cannot be left to carry that responsibility alone. That is what a duties-based approach means. It looks beyond an individual post to the systems that recommend it, amplify it and keep putting similar material in front of a child. The companies design those systems. They control how they work. They have the technical expertise and the resources to make them safer. This bill would give them a legal obligation, a duty, to do so.

We already expect safety to be part of the design of the products that children use or the advertising that they see. That expectation should extend to the digital environments where they spend so much of their lives. This bill would establish three core duties supported by transparency requirements.

First is a duty to act responsibly. Regulated social media services would have to reduce the risk of exposure to seven categories of harmful content, including bullying, sexual exploitation and content encouraging children to harm themselves. AI chatbot services would also have obligations tailored to their risks. When someone expresses suicidal thoughts, for example, a chatbot would have to interrupt the conversation and direct them to immediate human support.

Second is a duty to protect children with safeguards built into services and age-related protections. I will return to that in a moment. Third is a duty to make certain content inaccessible. Child sexual abuse material and intimate content shared without consent would have to be made inaccessible in Canada within 24 hours of being identified or flagged, subject to the bill's review process. Companies would also have to publish digital safety plans explaining what they are doing and whether their measures are working.

I want to focus on the duty to protect children, because this is where the bill speaks most directly to families. It would require certain social media services to prevent children under 16 from having accounts. A service could receive an exemption only if the independent commission was satisfied that it provides adequate safeguards for children. If a platform cannot make itself safe for children, it should not have children as customers. That is a clear expectation, and it is the company's responsibility to meet it.

Companies cannot be left to decide for themselves whether they have done enough. That has not worked, and it will not work. That is why this bill would establish an independent digital safety commission with the expertise to examine these systems and the authority to enforce the rules, review safety plans, investigate compliance and require companies to address failures. Significant financial penalties would give those obligations real consequences. For Canadians, that means having a public regulator working in their interests, able to demand answers from companies whose decisions affect their families and their children's health. That expertise matters, because technology does not stand still. A framework built only around today's platforms could be out of date before families feel its benefits.

The commission would help develop safety standards as risks evolve. The legislation also provides a process to extend child protection duties to additional categories of online services that pose significant risk to children. It is a modern response to a problem that countries around the world are confronting. It would give Canada the capacity to keep learning, to strengthen protections and to hold companies to their responsibilities as technology changes.

I keep coming back to that conversation with SickKids. When the people treating our children tell us that the digital environment is affecting their health, we have a responsibility to respond. We should be doing everything we can to prevent those harms before a child needs treatment. Parents will keep having the difficult conversations, teachers will keep supporting their students and doctors will keep caring for children who need help, but they do need us to do our part, and the companies creating these risks must be required to do theirs. For too long, they have ignored this problem and they have shied away from the obligations that are so obviously theirs.

Our children deserve time to grow, confidence in who they are and a childhood that puts their well-being first. This bill is necessary and it is urgent, and I urge all members in the House to support Bill C-34.

Bill C-34 Safe Social Media ActGovernment Orders

8:40 p.m.

Conservative

Grant Jackson Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague has been listening to some of the speeches of my colleagues who have spoken on the bill, and Conservatives are questioning why so many of the details on the powers of the commission would be left to regulation. Why cannot that be outlined in Parliament so that parliamentarians, duly elected members of this place, can have a say in the powers of a commission that would ultimately have significant authority over the lives of Canadians online? I wonder if that member can say whether she has heard those concerns. Does she think that the government will address them?

Bill C-34 Safe Social Media ActGovernment Orders

8:40 p.m.

Liberal

Leslie Church Liberal Toronto—St. Paul's, ON

Madam Speaker, I have heard those concerns raised, but where I come down on this issue is believing we need action today. We need a commission that is going to be flexible, that is going to be able to adapt to the way technology is changing in front of our eyes right now. If we wait to get that just perfect, if we wait to hammer out all of those details, the technology, the platforms will continue to move and there will be gaps we do not anticipate today that are going to be on our children's screens tomorrow. This is why this framework is necessary, and we are not alone in the world in pursuing this course. There are countries across the EU, across the G7 and G20 that are pursuing this as well, that are looking towards this type of framework. We are on the right track.

Bill C-34 Safe Social Media ActGovernment Orders

8:40 p.m.

Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park Ontario

Liberal

Karim Bardeesy LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague's speech; she has so much commitment and expertise on this issue. I am wondering if she could expound on a point she made in her speech around the inability or the unwillingness of companies that have been faced with these issues, the research in front of them and the increasingly concerning effects being caused by their technologies. I wonder if she can describe in fuller detail what it is that is preventing them from acting and why government action is necessary.

Bill C-34 Safe Social Media ActGovernment Orders

8:40 p.m.

Liberal

Leslie Church Liberal Toronto—St. Paul's, ON

Madam Speaker, over the last 15, nearly 20 years that we have been living in a digital world, from YouTube to the iPhone to the social media that we know today, such as Facebook and Twitter. Platforms have been evolving. What we do know consistently is that they have been evolving and growing in a way that is designed to create attention, that is designed to create addiction, that is designed to create clicks and likes. Platforms know this. We have had variations of this debate at different times in the last 15 years. For things like figuring out how to take down content quickly, we know that many of these companies have had to stand up thousands of employees to do that work, but they are shirking their responsibilities to do it quickly and to address all the different types of harmful content that we know they know are out there.

Bill C-34 Safe Social Media ActGovernment Orders

8:40 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, I want to get back to the point I was making to the member for University—Rosedale. I do not think we disagree in this place that the companies that are producing the hazardous product of so-called online services on what they call platforms are way smarter than any bureaucrat and way smarter than anyone drafting this legislation. This is their playground. They know what they are doing with algorithms. They know how they are making addictive content to keep people scrolling, whether it is seniors or children.

How do we create a maximum incentive for the producer of the hazardous product to keep our children safe? This bill would not do that. This bill says the penalty is to encourage compliance with this vague law. It does not say we can drive them out of business if they harm our children.

Bill C-34 Safe Social Media ActGovernment Orders

8:40 p.m.

Liberal

Leslie Church Liberal Toronto—St. Paul's, ON

Madam Speaker, the bill would make provisions for penalties in this scheme, and the companies have an interest in having their products in market. We want to make sure those products are safe, so if they are designed safely and if they meet the test the commission would set out, then we are going to feel much more reassured about their presence inside our digital borders. We definitely know there are multiple tracks at play here. We are seeing this in the United States. We are seeing it in Europe. We are seeing it even with the school boards in Ontario, which are taking many of these companies to court. I would offer my colleague across the way some hope that there are going to be multiple pathways we can look to in order to ensure that these companies are truly held liable for the social costs of the products they have put in all of our houses.

Bill C-34 Safe Social Media ActGovernment Orders

8:45 p.m.

Conservative

Grant Jackson Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for King—Vaughan.

I am proud to rise today on behalf of my constituents in Brandon—Souris to speak to Bill C-34, the safe social media act. As a member of gen Z, I am among the few parliamentarians who grew up with smart phones at school and social media becoming part of everyday life. I got my first phone at age 12, the LG Rumour with a slide-out keyboard. We thought we were very cool.

I then got my first smart phone at age 14, and entered high school with the rest of my cohort into the brave unknown of teenagers on social media for the first time and it certainly was the unknown. There were Snapchat messages in class and Instagram notifications constantly. This was long before the algorithms and ad campaigns got to today's level of sophistication. It really was the Wild West.

While there were certainly some positive features, there was also a dark side that every young person has seen. While we saw it, and young people continue to see it minute by minute, hour by hour, parents often do not. Their algorithms, understandably, just look a lot different. If they do see it, there is very little they can do about it.

A parent can put a phone away at supper and make sure homework comes first. They can attempt to confiscate it at bedtime. However, regardless of breaks, they cannot rewrite the software that decides what their child sees or personally remove an image someone else has shared. They cannot control a predator who has mastered what it sounds like to imitate the voice and speech of a young person in order to lure kids in.

That is the challenge facing all families across the country and that is why Conservatives believe children should be protected online, technology companies should be held accountable and parents should have the tools to keep their children safe. Those principles are clear, but whether Bill C-34 would actually deliver on them is the real question before us today.

Kids are still figuring out who they are. They are learning how to handle pressure and how to separate what is real from what is not. That is difficult enough without constant comparison, online cruelty and a stream of content designed to keep them watching. An embarrassing moment at school used to be something someone could leave behind when they went home, but today that same moment can be recorded and shared with hundreds or thousands of people and follow someone everywhere. A cruel message can be shared long after the day ends, and for a young person being targeted online, putting the phone down does not erase the fear of what everyone else might have seen or might be saying.

Most concerning is a place where predators have far too much access to young people with zero accountability. In 2024, police across Canada reported almost 17,000 incidents of online child sexual exploitation, and StatsCan warns that police-reported figures likely underestimate the full scope of the problem.

The government is right to acknowledge it. Parents are worried. They know their children's strengths, worries and maturity levels better than anyone else, but a child sitting quietly in their bedroom may be dealing with something that a parent cannot see. Taking harm seriously means being willing to examine this problem and the government's proposed position clearly. Parents deserve more than assurances from a tech company, and they deserve to know exactly what the government intends to do about this problem.

Bill C-34 claims to impose new safety standards on social media and AI chatbot services, and establish a digital safety commission to oversee a framework. However, many of the most important details are being left for future regulations. Here enters our concern. The bill says companies must introduce design features to protect children. What does that mean in practice? Will it change the algorithms that recommend harmful content or the endless scrolling that keeps kids watching? We do not know yet. This is something my constituents are concerned about.

In a recent mailer, I asked the people of Westman their thoughts on this bill and whether, in general, kids should be banned from social media. A constituent named Jack, who opposes a ban, wrote to me and said, “Companies just need to be held accountable for the manufactured algorithms they run. Don't ban kids.” Many others agree and I think that is an important point.

Parents can set limits at home, but they cannot control the content that these algorithms push onto their children's screens. That responsibility has to rest with the companies designing and operating these platforms. Will the regulations under Bill C-34 actually change how those companies operate? Will they simply be required to file a safety plan with the government and carry on?

Bill C-34 also aims to give this commission the substantial powers to investigate companies, enforce compliance and impose penalties. Cabinet and the commission would each have regulation-making powers within the framework to determine what that compliance and those penalties are, not Parliament. I understand the need to move quickly and to hold technology companies accountable, but how can Parliament judge whether these powers are appropriate when we have not seen so many of the rules that would govern their use?

Consider a parent who discovers, in the words of this legislation, that an intimate image of their child has been shared without consent, perhaps even generated by AI. Their priority is to get it taken down as quickly as possible. The bill claims to have a process for removing specified content, generally within 24 hours after it is identified or properly flagged, although future regulations could change those criteria, but even if they are not, 24 hours on the Internet is a long time. What happens if the platform rejects the complaint? If those 24 hours pass and the image is still up, does that family now have to go through another complaints process with the commission, all while the image continues to spread? If the platform simply fails to act, what consequences would it actually face? A parent in Brandon—Souris should not need a lawyer to navigate this system. We need to know that these protections will work in the real world in real time and not just on paper.

This brings me to the proposed restriction on social media accounts for children under 16. Ronald, a constituent from Brandon, supported a ban, raising concerns about how easily children can encounter harmful content online, but he also made an important point. He wrote that parents would need to be a willing partner if this were to succeed. I could not agree more. We can pass all the legislation in Ottawa we like, but parents are still the ones raising their children and helping them navigate the online world. Kids are primarily their responsibility, far more than the government's.

That raises a very practical question: How would this proposed restriction actually work based on what is in the bill? The bill provides for age checks on social media services designated through regulations with possible exemptions for platforms that have “adequate safeguards”. What does “adequate” mean? By whose definition is it adequate? Is it the parents' definition of an adequate safety plan for their kids, or would it be the commission's or the government's? We do not know, because so much of these decisions would be left to regulation after the bill has passed.

Putting an age restriction into practice also means finding a way to verify people's ages, and that raises another serious concern: the privacy of Canadians and the security of their personal information. If platforms must check people's ages, how will they do it? Will Canadians be asked for government ID, a facial scan or information collected by an outside company? The bill does not include safeguards requiring information collected for age checks to be protected, used only for that purpose and destroyed afterwards. Who will collect the data? How will we know that it has been deleted? What happens if there is a breach? We only know from highly reputable organizations, like Crime Stoppers very recently, that the threat of a data breach is a very real possibility in today's day and age. Once that sensitive personal info has been compromised, a promise to delete it later offers little comfort. Parents should not have to trade one concern about their child's safety for another concern about their child's personal information.

After speaking with parents in Westman, I know they want their children to make friends, learn about the world and become independent enough to make good decisions, but most of all, they want their kids to be safe. Tech can be a tool, but it can also be a path to things that no child should face alone.

As the bill proceeds through second reading, Parliament must remain focused on two things: holding powerful tech companies accountable without handing the Liberals a blank cheque on oversight, and, most importantly, protecting children by empowering, not replacing, parents. Conservatives will continue to fight for those priorities until we get this legislation right. The consequences are too significant for anything less.

Bill C-34 Safe Social Media ActGovernment Orders

8:55 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Coteau Liberal Scarborough—Woburn, ON

Madam Speaker, my colleague brought up a lot of questions and hypotheticals. He criticized the use of regulation, which is a normal process in this House. He seemed to have a lot more questions than an actual position on or insights into the legislation. Will he be supporting this bill, yes or no?

Bill C-34 Safe Social Media ActGovernment Orders

8:55 p.m.

Conservative

Grant Jackson Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Madam Speaker, I am not sure why the member is offended that an opposition member is asking questions of the government. That is how Parliament works. Nonetheless, I think Conservatives have been clear that we support, in principle, protecting kids online. We are looking for more details. Perhaps some of the Liberal members will put more of the teeth of this bill on the record now so that Conservatives can assess it before it comes to a vote.

Bill C-34 Safe Social Media ActGovernment Orders

8:55 p.m.

Conservative

Anna Roberts Conservative King—Vaughan, ON

Madam Speaker, the important thing we have to understand today is that we are concerned about the future of this country. If we do not protect our children, we will not have a future for them. That is what we are looking for. We are looking to protect our children, and I think my colleague did a wonderful job of explaining that.

What do you think we need to do to ensure that—

Bill C-34 Safe Social Media ActGovernment Orders

8:55 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

I will remind the hon. member that I do not think anything.

Bill C-34 Safe Social Media ActGovernment Orders

8:55 p.m.

Conservative

Anna Roberts Conservative King—Vaughan, ON

Madam Speaker, I apologize.

What can we do to ensure that tech companies take accountability in protecting the future of our country?

Bill C-34 Safe Social Media ActGovernment Orders

8:55 p.m.

Conservative

Grant Jackson Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Madam Speaker, that was an important question. There are ways that tighter strings could be attached to how tech companies run their algorithms, what they are like based on the platforms they are delivered on, and what they look like compared to, for example, the data plans on the devices that kids use to access these platforms and the Internet.

Those are just a couple of examples off the top of my head where this bill could more tightly restrict what kids with kid plans on any of our networks are seeing. We do not see that in the bill, unfortunately. Hopefully the government will make some amendments and improve the bill.

Bill C-34 Safe Social Media ActGovernment Orders

8:55 p.m.

Liberal

Natilien Joseph Liberal Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC

Madam Speaker, right now we are addressing the very important topic of child protection. I am the father of a 12-year-old daughter.

I would like to ask my colleague a question concerning the regulation of AI chatbots. How do members propose to protect young people from the risks associated with AI chatbots, especially their ability to reinforce behaviours harmful to our children?

Bill C-34 Safe Social Media ActGovernment Orders

8:55 p.m.

Conservative

Grant Jackson Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Madam Speaker, we do not have to look very far, sadly, to see the tragic consequences of what unregulated AI chatbots can do and the damage they can do to the mental health of a young person. There are ways the government could legislate what ability chatbots could have to give advice on specific topics, like, for example, atrocities in public places, mental health issues and suicide. I hate to use that word, but there are ways the government could regulate that through legislation. We are not seeing this bill do that, because the government is leaving it all, apparently, for the commission to decide on after the bill is passed. We would like to see some stricter provisions put into law rather than being left up to the commission, whoever that is going to be, somewhere, someday down the road.

Bill C-34 Safe Social Media ActGovernment Orders

9 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, it seems that Conservative Party members are talking about the problem. We have a good understanding of the problem. That is why we have Bill C-34. It is there to protect the interests of children in Canada.

Does the member support the principle of having the legislation go to committee?

Bill C-34 Safe Social Media ActGovernment Orders

9 p.m.

Conservative

Grant Jackson Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Madam Speaker, I think I made that clear in my speech. If the member for Winnipeg North was not listening, yes, I absolutely recognize the problem and support, in principle, addressing the serious problem of the kids' mental health crisis online and the problem of social media companies exploiting kids through their exploitative algorithms.

That is an answer to the member's question. He is shaking his head.

Bill C-34 Safe Social Media ActGovernment Orders

9 p.m.

Conservative

Anna Roberts Conservative King—Vaughan, ON

Madam Speaker, I am rising today to address an issue that has been on the minds of concerned parents both in King—Vaughan and across this country. In this increasingly digital and connected world, it has become more important than ever to ensure that our children are able to access the Internet in a safe manner that is beneficial to their well-being. We are at a tipping point where access to age-inappropriate content and increasingly addictive social media algorithms run the risk of corrupting the minds of our youth and damaging their mental health.

Canadian parents are well-meaning and, as we all do, want the absolute best for their children. Parents are seeing the effects that unfiltered access to all corners of the Internet can have on their children in real time. They are overwhelmed and are trying their best to keep their children safe from online harms, but many feel that they are fighting a losing battle and need help.

What are average parents supposed to do to keep up with the rapid development and progress made by big tech companies, making all forms of content more and more accessible online? The statistics on online harm that children are exposed to are staggering. Twenty-five per cent of Canadian youth between the ages of 12 and 17 have reported experiencing cyber-bullying, which is correlated with a number of serious mental health considerations for our youth, who are already struggling. Police reported an increase in the sexual exploitation of children online of 347% between 2014 and 2024, a figure that both stuns us and fills us with disgust.

We have seen real-world examples of the impact that these figures have in the country. The heartbreaking example of Amanda Todd some years ago, who tragically died by suicide following sexual exploitation and cyber-bullying on online, is especially important to this discussion. It is critical that we give her and other young people like her justice.

Our youth are living more and more digitally forward lives and, in the vast majority of cases, are more tech-conscious than their well-intentioned parents. However, having technological capability does not necessarily mean they are safe from vulnerability.

One of the benefits of growing older is growing wiser and knowing when someone is trying to take advantage of us. Social media algorithms are specifically targeted to keep us engaged and take advantage of our addiction to their apps. These digital world interactions can have real-world consequences for our youth, whether that comes in the form of cyber-bullying, sexual exploitation, content that imposes unrealistic and damaging body image standards, or exposure to violence and pornography.

I am a mother and a grandmother. I know first-hand how important it is to protect and provide for our children. I know what it is like to want our children to have a better life than we had and to prepare them as best as possible for life's many challenges. Parents today are in an increasingly difficult situation, and I worry about the future of my own grandchildren. I want my grandchildren to have a social and fulfilling life, not one in which their self-worth is determined by what they see and read on social media.

As parents, we can set all the guardrails and house rules on technology we want, but we can only do so much to fully protect them, especially when removing devices and removing all access are not an option. What then? What can we do to protect our kids? As legislators, we have a unique and profound responsibility to give parents all the tools that we as parliamentarians can. We also have the unique ability to provide those tools.

Parents know what is best for their children and should be empowered when making decisions in their children's best interest. We cannot expect them to do all the work in keeping their kids safe. These parents are asking for our help. As legislators, we need to comply.

A survey by Angus Reid showed that 75% of Canadians, and 70% of Canadians whose children live in the home, are in support of a ban on social media use for youth under 16, but 72% of Canadians believe parents should hold the primary responsibility for regulating the social media use in accordance with their own parenting policies.

Parliament should not tell parents how to raise their children, but Parliament should be involved in helping parents keep their children safe on the Internet. We need to ensure that whatever the House puts forward in terms of solutions is effective and minimally restrictive on the freedoms of Canadians. We need to ensure that whatever is put forward does not have the unintended effect of forcing children into spaces that are even more unregulated, unmonitored and dangerous. We need to hold technology companies accountable for what children have access to on their platforms, and we need to work with them to ensure that protection of children is at the forefront of their internal policies.

How can we make sure that any future policy actually requires that technology companies take responsibility for our children's safety on their apps and does not simply keep them chained to social media to generate more revenue? There need to be strong penalties for a corporation that fails to protect our children, and Parliament needs to ensure that the relevant authorities are empowered to enforce these penalties.

We have seen the results of some similar legislation in other Commonwealth countries, like Australia and the United Kingdom. In Australia, for example, restrictions on Internet usage did not have a strong effect on access. As of three months after the bill was passed, 70% of children kept accessing the Internet and their accounts, and there was no reduction in reports of online harm.

What can we, as legislators, do to make sure that any legislation in Canada will actually make a difference? Kids are tech-savvy, and they will find the bypasses if we let them. VPNs, or virtual private networks, are often used to bypass age- or location-based restrictions, and statistics in countries with this kind of legislation show that VPN usage has gone up considerably. How can our legislation address this? Is it within our power to curtail VPN usage if the bill is passed?

How are we going to actually enforce age-based restrictions on certain content? Other comparable legislative bodies have required submission of government-issued ID. What would this mean for the privacy concerns of Canadians, who would be placing their sensitive personal information in the hands of a private corporation, many of which may not even be based in Canada? What are they supposed to do when there is a data breach and their information is released to all kinds of bad actors?

One thing is certain, which is that the legislation will need a great deal of scrutiny and careful consideration, which Parliament should be equipped and prepared for. The Conservative Party wants nothing more than to keep Canadian children safe, healthy and strong. Conservatives in the House will do everything they can to ensure that any future legislation protects kids from cyber-bullying, social media addiction, explicit content, sexual exploitation and bad actors online while also empowering parents to retain their decision-making power and protecting the privacy interests and freedoms of all Canadians.

Bill C-34 Safe Social Media ActGovernment Orders

9:10 p.m.

Liberal

Will Greaves Liberal Victoria, BC

Madam Speaker, I have a pretween daughter, and there is a very real conversation that happens in our school, with the parents in our school community, about who is going to give their child a cell phone first because when that one parent gives that one tween-age child a phone, it creates the desire for this object among all of the other students and puts incredible pressure on us parents, so much so that we wish the school would simply ban the use of these devices so that individual parents would not have either the burden of monitoring their child's social media and Internet use or the social pressure to keep up with the Joneses and the latest technology, etc.

I wonder if the hon. member for King—Vaughan would agree, as a mother and a grandmother, as she said, that some of these decisions are actually made easier for parents and for families when they are taken at the collective level. When a school or an institution such as government makes an evidence-based, rational decision, that makes a standard common to everybody and relieves parents of the individual responsibility of having to make that unpopular decision that their son or daughter cannot have a phone.

Bill C-34 Safe Social Media ActGovernment Orders

9:10 p.m.

Conservative

Anna Roberts Conservative King—Vaughan, ON

Madam Speaker, that is actually a really good question. Here is the situation. All kids want to have what the other children have. We know that. It is part of nature. However, one thing that we have to really understand is that we need to hold these big tech companies responsible.

I am going to tell a sad story. I met with a mother whose child is autistic and was groomed through the Internet. The mother found her daughter five years later. The daughter had to go through multiple surgeries. She is now on suicide watch. That all happened through the Internet, through a social media platform. I do not want that to be anyone else's child. It is our responsibility to make sure that those innocent, vulnerable children are kept safe.

Bill C-34 Safe Social Media ActGovernment Orders

9:10 p.m.

Conservative

Grant Jackson Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Madam Speaker, elaborating on that very tragic story that my colleague just raised, I wonder if she feels that the bill in its current format would prevent that situation from happening again. Do we know enough about the bill to make that judgment yet?

Bill C-34 Safe Social Media ActGovernment Orders

9:10 p.m.

Conservative

Anna Roberts Conservative King—Vaughan, ON

Madam Speaker, I think what we need to do is sit down as parliamentarians in committee, go over the bill line by line, and find ways that we can ensure that these tech companies become responsible and are accountable to protect our children. Without our children, this country has no future.

Bill C-34 Safe Social Media ActGovernment Orders

October 28th, 2026 / 9:10 p.m.

Liberal

Michael Coteau Liberal Scarborough—Woburn, ON

Madam Speaker, I am a bit confused by both members opposite who spoke on the issues. We have a slew of different bills. We have Bill C-36, we passed Bill C-16, we have Bill C-25, and of course there is Bill C-34, which we are debating today. This a series of bills that really look for ways to protect Canadians when it comes to young people and when it comes to all Canadians. These four bills really look for ways to protect Canadians.

I was hoping the member could reflect on any of those bills to see if they align with anything that she has mentioned today and if there is support for any of those four bills that I just mentioned.

Bill C-34 Safe Social Media ActGovernment Orders

9:15 p.m.

Conservative

Anna Roberts Conservative King—Vaughan, ON

Madam Speaker, I know the Scarborough area well. I would ask the member how he would explain that to Amanda Todd's mother. Amanda Todd's mother right now is grieving the loss of her daughter. We could protect those children, but we have a responsibility as parliamentarians and as parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, mothers and fathers to work to ensure that these tech companies become just as accountable as parents if we want the future of this country to continue to be prosperous.