MPs eager to move forward on C-34, but Tories, Bloc call for transparency on digital regulator

Opposition MPs are calling on the Liberal government for more transparency on the yet-to-be-established regulator and safeguards introduced in Bill C-34, the Safe Social Media Act. During second reading of C-34 on Oct. 21, Conservative MP Rachael Thomas (Lethbridge, Alta.), said the government’s third attempt at regulating the digital world, which includes banning social media for all young people under the age of 16, “has potential, but its success will depend on whether it delivers meaningful protections for children, and gives parents the necessary support that they need.” “Canadians and legislators are saying enough is enough,” she said during her opposition speech. “We want to move forward. We want to make a difference.” But before the Tories will stand behind the bill, Thomas, the party’s critic for culture, wants more information from the Liberal benches. Bill C-34 would establish an independent regulator tasked with overseeing the legislation’s enforcement, mirroring the online harms legislation put forward by Justin Trudeau’s government, also known as Bill C-63, which died on the Order Paper before becoming law. When the government tabled C-63 in 2024, the Conservatives were vehemently opposed to the idea of the regulator. While Thomas didn’t offer explicit support for the regulator, she also didn’t denounce it, either, as Liberal MP Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Man.) pointed out after asking whether she supports the body “in principle.” In response to Lamoureux’s question, Thomas agreed there needs to be a regulator of some kind that brings about platform accountability. “But in terms of the scope of authority given to that commission, I think there’s big questions pertaining to Bill C-34, and I look forward to diving deep into those,” she said. Thomas’s stance on C-34’s regulator marks a stark shift from her party’s rhetoric around the previous iteration of the online harms act. However, the lack of criticism could be attributed to the make up of the bill. The 92-page document offers little detail on which platforms will be scoped in, what guidelines and safeguards will look like, how the social media ban and other regulations will be enforced, and how the government plans to protect privacy in the use of age assurance. Thomas acknowledged the missing information, and argued the feds need to prove the bill will be effective before it comes into force. Seemingly, the Liberals aren’t sure, either. Canadian Identity Minister Marc Miller (Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, Que.) said during the debate the “bar will be quite high” for safety guidelines, but wouldn’t elaborate on what those guidelines will be in response to a question from Thomas. “There’s probably a legitimate debate to be had here and in committee, as to what those regulations are, whether they are determined by the regulator or, perhaps, even by committee,” Miller said. “But, obviously, in the conception of a regulatory platform, regulations shouldn’t necessarily be debated on every item in the House, but I think that’s a careful balance that we’re willing to consider.” Bloc Québécois MP Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Mitis—Matapédia—Les Basques, Que.) accused the government of creating a new body without being able to explain how it will solve the problem, and asked the Liberals to explain in “concrete terms” what new powers the regulator will have. In response, Liberal MP Rachel Bendayan (Outremont, Que.) promised the process will be “very transparent,” but said, “we’re not at that stage yet.” In his own opposition speech, Bloc culture critic Martin Champoux (Drummond, Que.) said in French he considers C-34 “one of the most important bills of this Parliament.” Champoux said the Bloc agrees with the principle of the bill, but throughout the debate echoed calls for more detail and transparency. He said the C-34 places a “major responsibility on us, and we have to do this work in the most responsible way possible.” To do this, Champoux said MPs from every federal party need to be committed to open dialogue and cross-partisan collaboration. Neither Thomas nor Champoux offered specific amendments to the bill, but both said there needs to be a discussion on why video game platforms are not scoped in. “It’s such an important issue that we have to sit down and listen carefully to the stakeholders, parents, health professionals,” Champoux said in response to a question from The Wire Report on Oct. 22. “So we have to have a discussion. I don’t have any amendments that I would bring forward at this point…, but I’m really hoping that we can sit down and have a serious discussion with all the parties involved with no ideological obstructions.” If Bill C-34 passes second reading in the House of Commons, it will be referred to committee. The bill is scheduled to be further debated later this week. mcollins@thewirereport.ca

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

MPs eager to move forward on C-34, but Tories, Bloc call for transparency on digital regulator

Regulatory | By Maria Collins |October 26, 2026

Unlock all the Canadian telecom, broadcasting and digital media news you need.

FREE TRIAL

SUBSCRIBE

MPs vote down Bloc motion asking for restoration of streaming levy

Liberal MPs promise streamers will still have to fund Cancon as Ottawa develops CRTC policy direction

Lawful access delicate balancing act, IIC conference is told

Related Stories

Q&A: Keldon Bester wants Ottawa to protect smaller players when implementing C-34

Millions of driver’s licences were allegedly listed for sale on the dark web. What does it mean for Canada’s push for age assurance?

Online harms rank number one threat to Canadian children: report

Q&A: Ottawa’s social media bill gets passing grade from Internet Society

Reuse & Permissions

Inside The Wire Report

Information

Hill Times Publishing

Get in Touch With Us

Regulatory |
By Maria Collins
|October 26, 2026