House of Commons Hansard #143 of the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was c-39.

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.

Petitions

Building Canada Strong Act Second reading of Bill C-39. The bill, titled the Building Canada Strong Act, proposes to modernize federal permitting and environmental reviews by establishing a one-year decision timeline for major projects. The government argues these measures will streamline supply chains, modernize port governance, and improve labour relations to boost competitiveness. Conversely, opposition parties criticize the legislation, with Conservatives arguing it adds unnecessary bureaucracy and Bloc Québécois members warning it risks circumventing environmental laws and threatening worker protections. 49100 words, 6 hours in 2 segments: 1 2.

Statements by Members

Question Period

The Conservatives demand relief for a diesel price crisis, proposing a plan to eliminate fuel taxes and accelerate refining investment. They highlight stories of struggling families unable to afford rent and groceries due to inflation. Additionally, they criticize soft-on-crime policies and loose bail laws that they claim have led to unchecked crime.
The Liberals prioritize affordability through the fuel excise tax suspension, the national school food program, and the groceries and essentials benefit. They champion streamlining infrastructure via the Building Canada Strong Act and highlight criminal justice reforms. Furthermore, they pledge to advance reconciliation by investing in education to confront residential school denialism.
The Bloc denounces Bill C-39, arguing it infringes on Quebec's jurisdiction and suspends environmental laws for oil interests. They demand protections for provincial authority and condemn the indefinite circumvention of the rule of law.
The NDP opposes privatizing airports and ports and demands that the government criminalize residential school denialism.

Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Act Second reading of Bill S-209. The bill, S-209, seeks to restrict young persons’ online access to pornography via commercial age verification. Supporters argue it provides a vital tool for protecting children online. While Liberals support the objectives of Bill S-209, they contend that government initiatives like Bill C-34 offer a more effective way to address digital safety, sparking debate regarding the best legislative path. 7500 words, 1 hour.

Adjournment Debates

Affordability for Canadian seniors Warren Steinley highlights a constituent's struggle with inflation and ineligibility for government dental programs, arguing that Liberals fail to support seniors. Ryan Turnbull defends the government's record, citing the GST rebate, tax cuts, and other social programs, while criticizing Steinley for voting against these affordability measures.
Severance for Infoway ceo Dan Mazier questions whether the health minister's representative on the Canada Health Infoway board voted to approve a massive severance package for the former CEO following the PrescribeIT failure. Ryan Turnbull declines to confirm, instead citing an ongoing third-party review of the organization's governance and compensation practices.
Maritime Launch Services lease Michael Cooper accuses the Liberal government of corruption, alleging they bailed out a struggling company, Maritime Launch Services, through a backdated lease that facilitated insider profiteering. Sherry Romanado defends the agreement as a strategic necessity to establish sovereign space launch capability, adhering to all procurement and ethical standards.
Was this summary helpful and accurate?

Bill C-39 Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Bloc

Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC

Madam Speaker, the government keeps trying to reassure workers, particularly on the issue of labour rights, which, quite frankly, are literally being trampled by Bill C-39. Despite the government's attempts to sugar-coat it, Bill C-39 actually weakens protections for workers' rights, which is a real cause for concern for trade unions across Quebec and Canada.

They are trying to sugar-coat all this by saying there will be a mediator to advise the minister, but the minister will still have the right, under the bill, to disregard the mediator's recommendations. The minister will have the right to stop a strike if he believes it is going too far and is in some way detrimental to the project at hand. Workers who hear this feel that they are losing their bargaining power and their dignity, in a sense. Their rights are truly being trampled by this bill.

Despite the government's attempts to sugar-coat things and its claims that it is putting all kinds of protections in place, at the end of the day, the minister is the one who will have the final say on matters affecting workers during bargaining and strikes.

I would really like to hear my colleague from Winnipeg North do his level best to reassure me about that, but I am not sure he will be able to.

I would also like him to tell the workers, unions and labour representatives watching us that he is truly committed to ensuring that, when the committee studies Bill C‑39, solid protections for workers' rights will be added.

As things stand, the bill offers no reassurance at all.

Bill C-39 Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, I think it is important. When we think of union workers, they have a constitutional right to strike. I have always advocated that the best deal is a negotiated deal, and there is no doubt in my mind in regard to that.

I have served in the Manitoba legislature. I can tell the member opposite that all sorts of political entities, whether New Democrats, Conservatives, Progressive Conservatives or Liberals, in provincial and federal governments have at times had a need to legislate workers back to work. Just recently, in the province of Manitoba, health care workers were told to go back to work by the provincial government.

Unfortunately, in certain situations, the government is put in a very difficult position, but we believe that individuals have a right to strike, and the best agreement is a negotiated agreement. I hope that members will be open-minded about what is actually being proposed in this legislation.

Bill C-39 Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Conservative

Kelly DeRidder Conservative Kitchener Centre, ON

Madam Speaker, 11 years ago, we had the richest middle class in all of the G7 under the Harper government. After 11 years of failed policy and blocking our economy, we now seem to be turning course.

After many announcements and billions of dollars spent, why does nothing seem to get approved so that we can get back to the amazing Canada we had before the Liberal government took office?

Bill C-39 Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, that is unfortunate, and a good example would be the Canada Infrastructure Bank. The Canada Infrastructure Bank is constantly criticized by the Conservative Party of Canada. Conservatives have always said that it has done nothing and that we should get rid of it, but anyone can look into that. They should not believe the briefings from the Conservative backroom, because the reality is that the Canada Infrastructure Bank has had over 100 projects. We are talking about over $40 billion. That is real jobs. That is real investment. It is not all government money. However, the Conservatives will try to give the impression that the bank has not done anything and we should get rid of it.

At the end of the day, we cannot trust the Conservatives to have credible information often.

Bill C-39 Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

NDP

Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC

Madam Speaker, the Liberals keep talking about their mandate, but nowhere in their election platform did they talk about privatizing Canada's airports, selling off Canada's ports, building a publicly funded pipeline, outsourcing the Commissionaires' contract that supports veterans or turning a blind eye when the public health care system is being attacked by Alberta and being privatized.

Where in their election platform is any of this? They are outsourcing the—

Bill C-39 Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès) Alexandra Mendes

The hon. parliamentary secretary has time for a brief answer.

Bill C-39 Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, the member is wrong. At the end of the day, we had a very solid commitment to look at ways in which we can build a stronger and healthier Canada. That has been the objective of this government. We have made many steps toward it, and we will continue to do that. That includes financial and health programs.

Bill C-39 Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

5 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Madam Speaker, I will start with one of the parliamentary secretary's favourite lines. At the end of the day, it boggles the mind to hear him tell us that his government believes in the right to strike, but that sometimes decisions have to be made and the right to strike will therefore be taken away. That is what he is saying.

Worse than that, with Bill C-39, the Liberals not only want to undermine the right to strike, but they do not even want to take responsibility for it. The infamous provision that we have denounced repeatedly over the past few months will now be used by the Canada Industrial Relations Board. The next time we rise in the House to ask this government questions, the parliamentary secretary will tell us—since there is about a 98% chance he will be the one who answers us because he is always here—that the Canada Industrial Relations Board is independent and that it is not the government.

That is what the Liberals are doing with Bill C-39. It is not off to a good start. That said, I still think the parliamentary secretary is a nice guy. I even briefly thought I was glad to see him when we shook hands this week. However, what he is telling me brings me back to the harsh reality that we do not often see eye to eye. It is appalling. They claim that Bill C-39 is intended to strengthen the economy, but the measures included in Bill C-39 are not designed to strengthen the economy. They are designed to destroy, weaken or circumvent the laws that protect the public, workers and the environment.

The reason that environmental assessment standards were established over the decades and that laws were implemented to create a framework for labour negotiations is because they were necessary. The government cannot sweep that away in five minutes. However, that is what Bill C‑39 does, on the grounds that we are in a crisis, that we need to stand up to President Trump, that we need to be strong and get busy building. The government wants to get things done at lightning speed and flout every law.

Since we returned to the House in 2025, the same things have been said about every bill. With every bill, some minister wins the lottery and gets the right to suspend a bunch of laws. We should come up with some kind of tally system to figure out which minister won the right to get rid of the most laws this Parliament. It is pretty mind-boggling, and “mind-boggling” is an extremely polite word choice in the circumstances, because I could come up with few others.

This bill is not about the national interest. It is about the personal preferences of the Prime Minister and his friends. That is what it is about. The government is going to pick out projects that were included in Bill C‑5, so-called projects of national interest, and it is going to say that those projects do not need laws. The government is claiming to have a monopoly on the truth and deciding that such and such a project is essential and important. Too bad for workers, too bad for the environment and too bad for everything else. Worse yet, the government is even going to create energy corridors. That is completely ridiculous. The federal government will decide that it can do whatever it wants on certain land.

When the Liberals rise to ask us questions later, they will say that we separatists are always looking for trouble. Why do they think we are here? We are here to defend Quebeckers and fight back against terrible bills like these. Laws are not made to be suspended, abolished or circumvented. They are made to regulate community life and protect the common good.

The purpose of an environmental assessment is to determine whether a project is safe and whether the resulting drawbacks will be offset by the benefits it brings. Are the drawbacks too significant? Sometimes, of course, when the analysis is conducted by independent scientists, we may not like the answer. That is for sure. However, that is what they are there for. We are not all scientists here. We cannot make decisions like these lightly.

This reminds me of how, just before the summer break, the government gave the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food the power to authorize the use of pesticides and herbicides that the agencies responsible had previously declined to approve. What did the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food study in school? How do I find out? Is he qualified to make these decisions? I hope he gets some some good advice, because that is extremely frightening. I do not want to be told 10 years, eight years, five years or even six months down the road that this product really should not have been used, that scientists warned against its use but that the minister decided that it was no big deal and said that it could be used anyway.

That is the Canada we are living in. It does not make any sense. That is just one of the many reasons why Quebeckers need to leave Canada. It is because of things like this.

I am really looking forward to his response. I hope he will ask me questions because this is not a matter of national interest. What is more, these projects will be exempt from the laws because they are oil and gas projects, energy projects. The next pipeline will sail through the approval process. It will be done within a year at most. We know how these bills work. The government throws hundreds of pages at us and we have just a few hours to analyze them before speaking to them. My understanding of this bill—and this is the icing on the cake—is that the minister even has the power to approve a project before it has been assessed. Not only do they want to fast-track impact assessments and complete them within a year, but they can also turn around and allow construction to begin in the meantime.

Imagine a scenario where a project is launched. It is really exciting. A brand-new pipeline is being built to transport oil. The environmental assessment begins while the project is performing well, but after six months, the conclusion is that there are simply too many impacts on this or that ecosystem and that the project either has to change tack or be redesigned. By then it will be too late. The trench will already be dug. This is backwards logic.

I might seem less calm than usual. I swear I am trying to stay calm, but when I read things like this, I cannot believe they are actually doing this. Is this really flying under the radar?

As for Mr. Trump, everyone says that the Prime Minister is going to save us. It is all well and good to use the tariff crisis as an excuse, but we know what is going on.

I want to reassure all parliamentarians here today and everyone watching us at home that we are not against efficiency, effectiveness or economic development. We simply believe that precautions need to be taken. We think that the Prime Minister is currently giving himself powers that make no sense and granting powers to the executive branch that far exceed the mandates given by the people. This is especially true since, yes, the Liberals did win some by-elections this summer, but their majority was essentially created by floor crossers and backroom deals. I feel a need to remind my colleagues of that from time to time. Some folks will tell me to stop saying that, because everyone knows it. Yes, I will continue because that is more or less what real life is all about.

I heard the Prime Minister say this week that he has a mandate to do what he is doing. I disagree. My NDP colleague asked earlier where it was written in the Liberal platform. He was right to ask. I would like the parliamentary secretary to respond to that, if he would like to chat with me. Where in their platform did it say that they were going to do this? We did not see that anywhere.

I briefly mentioned workers' rights at the start, but what this bill does is crazy. It basically says that workers have the right to strike, but that the strike must not last long or cause any disruptions, that they must not make too much noise—that is specified in the bill—and that the government has the right to decide when it gets to be too much. That means that workers have no rights. If workers go on strike, it is too bad, but that is what the reality of bargaining looks like. First of all, when a strike occurs, it is usually because the employer has acted in bad faith. In any case, typically, though I do not want to generalize, there is no agreement. The parties are at a standstill. Strikes are meant to hurt the employer a little. That is called bargaining power. If there is no power, there will be no gains.

The bill says that people have the right to strike, but that they no longer have any power and that they can be stopped at any time. Actually, it gets worse, because the members of the government will not even take the blame for stopping strikers; the Canada Industrial Relations Board will do it for them while they sit with their feet up by the fire and tell themselves that it is not their fault. That is the kind of government we are dealing with.

Obviously, members will have guessed that the Bloc Québécois will vote against Bill C‑39.

Bill C-39 Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

5:10 p.m.

Liberal

Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to commend my esteemed colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé. He is a person I respect so much. Before he became a politician, he was a member of a very noble profession. He taught history, if I recall our conversations correctly.

I have a question for him as a man who is very familiar with history. Would it be possible, in this day and age, to build something like the national railroad in a short period of time, in this country, with all the regulations and timelines we have today? Are we not capable of taking action to do things that are really important for Quebec and for Canada?

Bill C-39 Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Madam Speaker, I respect my MP too. Whenever I am here for work, I stay in an apartment located in his riding. That makes him my MP. I receive his householders too. They have far too much writing for my taste, since they are in both languages, but that is his choice. I digress.

He brought up the topic of railroads. No one wants to revert to using the labour involved in building that railroad or the conditions of the time. That is what we are discussing today. I was saying that we are not against progress or construction but, over the years, we have adopted standards. We have adopted social standards that must be respected. That is important.

Personally, I think that the Liberal government is triggering a major rollback, but I am counting on the member who represents me when I am on the Hill to protect my interests and make my voice heard in this caucus.

I know that he cannot do that here, but I ask him to do that in his caucus.

Bill C-39 Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Dan Albas Conservative Okanagan Lake West—South Kelowna, BC

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Bloc member.

Instead of cutting red tape, the first part adds regions of national interest and additional layers of administration.

Why does every Liberal solution involve expanding Ottawa's bureaucracy rather than getting out of the way?

Bill C-39 Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by thanking my colleague and congratulating him on his remarkable efforts in French. It is heartwarming. I would really like to see more people doing that. It works both ways.

He mentioned red tape. There is, however, a subtle difference between cutting red tape and scrapping laws and social protections. What the government is doing is scrapping laws and social protections.

We generally agree that red tape is an issue when regulations overlap with other regulations again and again.

I do not understand why the Conservatives are unhappy with what the Liberals are doing. I thought they would be happy: The Liberals are scrapping all the laws to allow for oil infrastructure projects. I thought they would be happy.

Bill C-39 Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Liberal

Bardish Chagger Liberal Waterloo, ON

Madam Speaker, I listen to the debates in the House, and I know that the Bloc Québécois likes to say that there is always one Liberal member who asks questions. There will be several of us today, because I really appreciated that speech.

I think that here in the House, we have the opportunity to work together. It is easy to say that we have support or that we do not, but I think that what makes a difference is providing constructive feedback.

I would like the member to tell me how we can work better together and how we can ensure that we represent our constituents better in the House, because that is what my constituents in Waterloo want. I want to find ways to work together, and I think that is also the Prime Minister's approach.

Bill C-39 Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

5:15 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Waterloo. Several members in a row have been practising their French. I am delighted. We can work together.

I was saying to the previous speaker that I know that the Liberals are constrained in what they can say in Parliament. However, I hope that these people, who are smart, who are listening and who seem to understand the arguments we are putting forward, will convey to their caucus that we believe the bill should be amended. I hope that the committee study will give us sufficient latitude to amend certain provisions.

The bill is so significant and harmful that I struggle to envision us supporting it. I am normally very accommodating, but this bill goes pretty far.

Bill C-39 Building Canada Strong ActGovernment Orders

5:20 p.m.

Liberal

Greg Fergus Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Madam Speaker, this is the first time I have risen in the House to give a speech since returning from the summer break. I have put questions to several of my colleagues, but this is the first time I have had the opportunity to rise in the House to present a speech.

I am very pleased to rise during this debate on Bill C-39, an act respecting certain measures to strengthen the economy.

Admittedly, the bill is rather long. I managed to read it last night and this morning. I have to keep referring back to other existing laws to understand the situation better. However, as I was reading the bill, an image came to mind. It was a train. I love trains. If I have to choose between flying or taking a train, I always take the train, to go to Montreal, Toronto, Windsor or Quebec City, for example. That has been my preference since I was a young child. It is the best way to travel and get around our great country.

However, there is something that I never did as a child or a young adult. I never travelled across the country by train. I had the opportunity to do so when I was 49 years old. It was very exciting. My adult children and I took the train from Toronto to Vancouver. It took four days and it was extraordinary. I recommend that all my colleagues take advantage of the opportunity to see the country by train. There is the Canadian train that goes from Toronto to Vancouver, the Ocean train from Halifax to Montreal and between the two, there is the Via Rail fleet that serves the Quebec City-Windsor corridor.

Throughout my journey across the country, I thought about one thing. Could we build this railroad today? Historians and history teachers know that the Canadian Pacific Railway was basically built in four years, from 1881 to 1885. Yes, construction started a little earlier, but there were issues. The bulk of the construction was done during those four years. Could we do that today?

I readily agree with the member for Berthier—Maskinongé that it is important to have modern standards. We are not about to use slaves or workers who are treated like slaves to build the train, as we did with the Chinese-Canadian population at the time. We have labour standards, thank goodness. In a modern country, we can build in a responsible manner and in a way that ensures worker safety as much as possible. That is very important. However, given these factors, would we be able to do that today? I am not so sure. That is one of the reasons I like the specific provisions in this bill. When a project is proposed and all the information is available, we promise that there will be an assessment and that it will be completed within a year.

To me, that is key. Things need to change. Everything has become too complex. We are complicating things. Is that really necessary?

We do not want to get rid of the standards we have established, including environmental standards or standards related to working conditions. We need to keep those.

That being said, can we get organized and accomplish great things together, within a reasonable time frame? I hope that, through this bill, we are saying that we can.

I am hoping that with the building Canada strong act, we are able to organize ourselves in a way that allows us to respect all the different elements that we have thought are important as a country, that we have put in our laws, but that we can do so in a reasonable time frame because, and I have to say it and I know we have heard it, we really are living in exceptional times. Never before have I felt that this country has been threatened in the way that we have been. Now it is time for us to put all the elements on our side, to take advantage of all the wealth in people and in natural resources and in our industrial capacity, to build big things.

When I say “to build big things”, I want to make it very clear that I do not expect us to derogate from a lot of the important standards we have put in place. Still, can we do that evaluation quickly? Can we do so in respect of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which we have an obligation and a duty to consult and to work with? I think we can. I think we can get ourselves to that place because, again, from another example in history, another time when Canada felt as serious a challenge was during the Second World War. When we got into the war in 1939, Canada was far from being an industrial powerhouse as a country, but in a very short period of time, Canadians, recognizing the challenges that we had, came together and organized ourselves properly so that we transformed our entire economy to become a wartime economy. We did so quickly, without taking shortcuts or compromising on quality, but just saying to ourselves, “The challenge is great.”

We have to meet this challenge, and we have planned accordingly to be able to do so. This is something I expect from Canada and from all members of the House. I know we will not agree on everything, but I can only control what I can control.

I want to tell all my colleagues that I will listen to their concerns and support suggestions to improve the bill as much as possible. However, I do not want that to be used as an excuse to paralyze everything and not do the work. Personally, I think we are all up to the challenge before us.

Bill S-209 Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography ActPrivate Members' Business

5:30 p.m.

Conservative

Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake, SK

moved that Bill S-209, An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to pornographic material, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, we know that the Internet gives us access to almost anything. With just a few clicks, we can watch a movie, learn a new skill on YouTube, find a new recipe, research any topic or talk to a friend down the street or even on the other side of the world. Within my own lifetime, the Internet has gone from something new to something that is fully integrated into our everyday lives.

The Internet is without a doubt a big part of everyday life for every generation, including our children. They use it to do their homework. They play games. They watch videos. They connect with their friends. However, the Internet also gives children access to things that they are not ready to see, understand or even process.

One thing that is readily available to kids is pornography. Research shows that children can be exposed to pornography online without ever even intending to look for it. They can come across it in an unintended search result. They can click on the wrong link. It can be shared by another child, or it can appear through an advertisement. Once a child sees it, we cannot assume they understand what they are seeing. They do not have the experience or maturity to understand what they are looking at, or what it means for a healthy relationship. Parents may not even know that this has happened.

The Canadian Centre for Child Protection says children as young as eight and nine can easily come across sexually graphic material online. An Alberta study found that one-third of adolescents in this study had first been exposed to pornography by the age of 10. Other research has reported exposure at even younger ages, including children as young as five.

Let us just sit with that for a moment and think about that. At five years old, a child is just beginning school. They are learning to read. They are learning how to make friends. They are learning about the world around them. They should not be exposed to pornography, and they certainly do not have the capacity to understand it.

Children are being exposed to pornography online, sometimes at a very young age. The graphic and often violent content is not appropriate for a child. Their brains are still developing, and they are learning how to understand relationships, emotions, boundaries and the world around them. When a child is exposed to pornography, they do not have the maturity to understand what they are seeing. They may start to believe that what they are watching is healthy, and it can shape their ideas about sex, relationships and how people should treat one another.

There is another concern. What might start as accidental exposure or curiosity can become a habit. A child may return to that content again and again. Over time, repeated use can become compulsive, and for some young people it can develop into an addiction. There is certainly evidence that compulsive consumption is a widespread and growing public health issue. One Canadian survey examined students from grade 7 to 11. Among the grade 8 students surveyed, 88% of boys and 72% of girls reported seeing sexually explicit content, and 35% of boys said they had seen pornography too many times to count.

To be clear, these are children. They are still developing their understanding of sex, relationships and what is healthy, yet some are already being exposed to pornography on a regular basis. This is not something we should ignore, because that repeated exposure is rewiring the brains of the kids who are consuming it. Over time, repeated exposure can shape what a young person comes to see as healthy. It can shape their expectations about sex and relationships, and those ideas do not simply disappear once a child turns 18.

What a young person sees while they are still developing can influence how they understand relationships later in life. We can see examples of this in the way that some harmful sexual behaviours have become normalized among young people. A recent article by sex neuroscientist Debra Soh examined the growing normalization of sexual choking among young people. She makes the case that pornography has played a role in making behaviour that was once clearly understood as dangerous seem normal or even expected in some relationships.

These harms can affect how young people understand sex, relationships and consent, and the consequences can extend beyond a child who is viewing the content. When harmful behaviours are normalized, there can be victims on the other side of those behaviours. Young women and girls can be affected by expectations placed on them by partners who have learned distorted ideas about sex and relationships. We need to think about the young people who may be pressured to accept behaviour because they have been told it is normal. We also need to think about those who may experience sexual violence or abuse as a result.

Protecting children from harmful content is not just about what they see on a screen. It is also about the kinds of relationships and expectations we want them to carry into adulthood, yet there are currently no safeguards in place to make sure children cannot easily access this content online. That is a disservice to our children.

Bill S-209 is a response to that lack of a safeguard. I am grateful to Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne for her persistence and dedication in addressing this issue and for her commitment to protecting children online. I share that commitment.

To be clear, the bill is very targeted. It would not ban pornography. What it would do is require commercial pornography websites to take responsible steps to make sure their content is not being viewed by children. If a website makes money by providing pornography, it should have a responsibility to help keep that content away from children. Bill S-209 would require these websites to use effective age verification or age estimation measures. In other words, if the content is intended for adults, there should be a reasonable way to make sure that the person accessing it is actually an adult.

This is about putting in age restrictions where ones should already exist. We have age restrictions for many things in the real world. One has to be a certain age to buy alcohol. One has to be a certain age to gamble. One has to be a certain age to purchase pornography. We expect businesses to follow these rules. Frankly, we should expect the same online. Children deserve that protection. That is what the bill would do, while also taking into account the privacy of Canadians. It is not a matter of protecting children or protecting privacy. We can and we should do both.

Bill S-209 includes safeguards to protect the personal information of Canadians while making sure that children cannot easily access pornography. The bill would put clear requirements in place for any age verification or age estimation method that is prescribed. The method must be highly effective. It must be operated by an independent third party. It must protect the privacy of users and their personal information. It can only collect and use information that is necessary to verify or estimate a person's age. Once the process is complete, that information must be destroyed.

The goal is to confirm that someone is old enough to access adult content. It is not to create a record of what Canadians are looking at online. It is certainly worth noting that Canada's Privacy Commissioner, Philippe Dufresne, has expressed support for Bill S-209 and welcomed the privacy protections included in the legislation.

When we are talking about children, there is another important part of this conversation that we cannot overlook, and that is parents. Parents have the primary responsibility for raising their children. They teach their children right from wrong. They set boundaries. They talk to their children about what is appropriate and what is not appropriate. Parents do everything they can to keep their children safe.

This legislation in no way undermines the authority of parents. It does not replace the role of parents. It does not tell parents how to raise their children. Instead, it gives parents another tool to help protect their children online, because the reality is that no matter how hard parents try, they cannot monitor everything their children see online. They cannot be there for every search, every click, every message and every video. Parents can use parental controls and other safeguards on their children's devices, and those tools can certainly help, but they cannot protect every child from coming across inappropriate content.

That is where this legislation can help. It would add another layer of protection. It would put responsibility on the companies that profit from providing pornography to make sure that children cannot easily access it. Parents should not have to carry that responsibility alone. They are already doing everything they can. This bill would simply give them another tool to help keep their children safe online.

When I was home in my riding over the summer, I spoke with many parents about this issue. The message I heard was very clear: Parents want to protect their children. They know they cannot monitor everything their children do online, and they see this legislation as a reasonable step that can help them do that.

It is widely understood that early exposure to pornography is harmful to children. After decades of widespread access to online pornography, we have research showing the negative impact that early and repeated exposure can have on young people, and we as legislators have a responsibility to act on what we know. That means putting reasonable safeguards in place, supporting parents and making sure commercial pornography companies have effective age restrictions in place to keep their content away from children.

Bill S-209 would do exactly that. It would create a barrier between children and pornography that does not currently exist. It would help prevent unintended exposure and make it more difficult for children to access this content. It would give parents another tool while recognizing that parents cannot do this alone, and it would do so while respecting the privacy of Canadians. This bill would not ban pornography. It would not replace parents. It would simply recognize that protecting children online is a shared responsibility.

Children deserve reasonable safeguards and guardrails to protect them from online pornography. Parents deserve the tools to help protect them, and Canadians deserve privacy protections. Bill S-209 would bring these priorities together. I hope that all members of this House recognize the urgency of this issue and support the protections that our children deserve.

Bill S-209 Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography ActPrivate Members' Business

5:45 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope to speak to the member's bill a little later this afternoon.

I want to ask the member a question regarding the social media component to this. We know, for example, that there is a significant movement to put a limitation on children under 16 such that they cannot have social media accounts. Does the member have an opinion on that particular issue? Obviously, social media accounts often lead to a lot of pornography. I am very curious what her position would be on that.

Bill S-209 Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography ActPrivate Members' Business

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake, SK

Mr. Speaker, we need to recognize what Bill C-34 is encapsulating. Bill C-34 specifically applies to regulated social media services and regulated chatbot services, so that is user-generated content. What Bill S-209 is targeting is pornographic content from online porn companies. They are two different things.

I believe there is a hole in Bill C-34 where this is not covered. Online porn companies are not covered in Bill C-34. Bill S-209 is a targeted piece of legislation that will close that hole.

Bill S-209 Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography ActPrivate Members' Business

5:45 p.m.

Bloc

Andréanne Larouche Bloc Shefford, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, who is the other vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

I have had conversations with the senator, and our understanding is that the Liberals rejected the previous version of this bill, citing privacy and freedom of expression in particular. These were the arguments that led them to vote against it during the previous parliamentary session. Now, she has raised an interesting point regarding the opinion of Mr. Dufresne, Canada's Privacy Commissioner. He confirms that there have been improvements in the bill in terms of privacy protection.

I would like my colleague to reassure us on this point and, above all, to reassure the Liberals opposite that there have indeed been improvements since the last bill, so studying it in committee would be worthwhile.

Bill S-209 Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography ActPrivate Members' Business

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake, SK

Mr. Speaker, we do sit together on HUMA, and I very much appreciate working with the member.

We know the Privacy Commissioner has endorsed this bill. There are specific provisions in section 12(2) that would ensure that whatever method is chosen needs to be highly effective, be operated by a third party organization, and maintain user privacy and protect personal information.

The fact that the Privacy Commissioner has endorsed this bill says leaps and bounds, because his job is to ensure that the privacy of Canadians is respected. For sure, I think this would be great to go to committee, where we can have a deeper dive on those conversations regarding Bill S-209.

Bill S-209 Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography ActPrivate Members' Business

5:45 p.m.

Conservative

Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB

Mr. Speaker, the journey of this bill started back in 2015 with Motion No. 47, which came before this Parliament and was unanimously passed. That caused a health committee report that recommended exactly what the bill before us would do. It has been over a decade since that report come out. Canada was kind of a first mover back then, but efforts have kind of stalled.

I wonder if the member could talk about what other countries have done in this regard.

Bill S-209 Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography ActPrivate Members' Business

September 24th, 2026 / 5:45 p.m.

Conservative

Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake, SK

Mr. Speaker, it has been a very long time. It has been over 10 years that we have known this is an issue.

Not long ago, there was an article in The Globe and Mail, which I referred to in my remarks, about sexual strangulation derailing a generation of girls. This is how pornography is affecting children, the next generation. It is a distorted version of what relationships and sex are.

It is time this legislation passes so that we are able to move forward and take it to committee.

Bill S-209 Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography ActPrivate Members' Business

5:50 p.m.

Vancouver Granville B.C.

Liberal

Taleeb Noormohamed LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Innovation

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S-209 and the government's work to protect young people from online harms as technology evolves in front of us.

I also want to begin by thanking and recognizing Senator Miville-Dechêne for bringing this initiative to Parliament and for her continued work to better protect children online. I remember the previous iteration of this bill in the last Parliament. I enjoyed very much trying to see how we could learn from what she was seeking to put forward in that bill and how that might inform the work that we were doing.

It is very clear that ensuring young people are safe online is a priority we all share in the House. It is an important thing for us to keep top of mind. As the father of two young boys, it is something I certainly think about every day.

Let me say first that the government supports the objectives of Bill S-209. Children should not be able to access content, including pornographic content, that is inappropriate for their age online. Period. At the same time, our government understands that protecting children from pornographic content is not just about separating it from the protection of their personal information. Bill C-34, the safe social media act, and Bill C-36, the protecting privacy and consumer data act, seek to address both of these critical concerns thoughtfully and place them in the hands of a regulator that would be empowered to protect Canadians online. Indeed, much of what was in Bill S-209 previously has inspired some of this work.

Digital platforms play an important role in the lives of many young Canadians, helping them stay connected to family and friends, access educational resources and discover new interests. At the same time, young people are sometimes exposed to online content that is inappropriate for their age. Recognizing both the benefits of digital technologies and the need to better protect children online, the government introduced Bill C-34, the safe social media act, and Bill C-36, an act to enact the protecting privacy and consumer data act, to amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and to make amendments to other acts, in June 2026. Together, these initiatives establish clear rules that promote online safety, strengthen privacy protections and increase accountability and trust across the digital ecosystem.

Bill C-34 addresses directly the risks when children are exposed to pornographic content online. It would require operators of regulated services to implement age assurance measures to mitigate the risk that children would be exposed to adult content on their service.

Bill C-34 would also put strong protections in place to ensure that children's personal information is safeguarded, that it is destroyed once it is no longer needed and that any age verification or estimation measures do not unreasonably or disproportionately limit users' freedom of expression.

Young people can be harmed not only by the content they encounter online but also when their images are misused to create harmful deepfakes. We all know that generative AI has made this material easier to create and spread without consent. Our government is tackling this emerging threat by strengthening protections for victims and holding those responsible to account.

Our government has already taken strong action to address these issues through Bill C-16, the protecting victims act, which expands the Criminal Code definition of an “intimate image” to include sexualized deepfakes and ensures that those who generate, distribute or threaten to distribute such content are held accountable.

Bill C-34 seeks to build on this work by tackling these issues at their source before they have the chance to spread online. Under this bill, operators of regulated chatbot services would be required to put measures in place to mitigate the risk of a chatbot communicating harmful content, which includes generating non-consensual intimate images and content that sexually victimizes a child or revictimizes a survivor.

As technology continues to evolve, online safety and privacy are becoming increasingly interconnected. Protecting young people requires us to address both.

That is why, along with Bill C-34, the government introduced Bill C-36, which represents the most significant modernization of Canada's Privacy Act as it applies to the private sector in over 25 years. Bill C-36 would strengthen individual protections, specifically by recognizing privacy as a fundamental right, strengthening children's privacy and creating a strong right to delete or vanish, to protect the privacy and reputation of Canadians online. These are all challenges that did not exist when the current privacy legislation was enacted.

For children, this matters. Age verification generally relies on the use of personal information. Bill C‑34 sets out privacy safeguards that age verification measures must respect. Bill C‑36 strengthens protections for children's personal information more broadly.

Together, Bill C‑34 and Bill C‑36 would also create a permanent digital safety and privacy commission. The commission's mandate would be to promote online safety in Canada while protecting Canadians' personal information in the marketplace.

Bill C‑34 and Bill C‑36 set out these protections, which are backed by robust enforcement regimes. For example, under the protecting privacy and consumer data act proposed in Bill C‑36, the commission would have the authority to issue compliance orders or impose substantial administrative monetary penalties on regulated entities that fail to meet their obligations to protect Canadians' privacy.

The bill also requires the regulatory body to consider the best interests of children in all policy and enforcement decisions. This means stronger protections for children's data, clear rules for organizations that target or serve young users, and an ongoing commitment—

Bill S-209 Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography ActPrivate Members' Business

5:55 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker Tom Kmiec

The hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake is rising on a point of order.

Bill S-209 Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography ActPrivate Members' Business

5:55 p.m.

Conservative

Rosemarie Falk Conservative Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake, SK

Mr. Speaker, I am a little concerned, because I understand we are to be debating Bill S-209 right now, and I am hearing about bills that are government bills and are being debated, and it is up to the government to call the calendar. We are debating Bill S-209. We are not debating Bill C-34 or Bill C-36.