Debates of Sept. 24th, 2026

Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Act

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

As members know, members have a wide latitude during their debate time to go on the subjects that they desire. I am sure the parliamentary secretary is getting back to Bill S-209, so I will let him complete his time.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

The fact is that the work done in the context of Bill S‑209, as well as the work that was done in the context of Bill S‑210 in the previous Parliament, is represented in these bills. If she had read both bills, she would know that, but such is life.

We believe that this model, that is, enforcement regimes grounded in expertise within a common digital regulatory body, provides a more effective way to address complex and cross-cutting issues involving privacy and digital safety, including age verification, the proliferation of synthetic content in digital spaces and the safety of children online, all of which are closely linked to the objectives of Bill S‑209.

The strengths of the government's approach become clear when we consider age assurance. Parliament's consideration of Bill S-209, to my colleague's comment, and its previous iterations has consistently highlighted the real privacy concerns associated with age verification and age estimation measures, especially when children's personal information is involved, which I am certain the member must care about. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner has stated that age assurance can further the goal of creating a safer, more privacy-protective online environment for kids, but that careful attention must be paid to determining the most important appropriate means of verification.

Every age assurance requirement involves trade-offs. The more reliably a measure establishes a user's age, the more sensitive the information is that it tends to collect. Whoever sets and enforces that requirement is making a safety decision and a privacy decision at the same time. Bill S-209 would recognize that and require cabinet to ensure that any age assurance method it prescribes protects users' personal information.

I would submit the member opposite would be very happy to see this in our legislation, but those conditions would be applied by regulation and enforced by an existing federal institution that the bill does not designate, so I am curious how the member opposite would think this would actually be enforced. Under Bill C-34 and Bill C-36, these decisions would sit within a single body. The commission would have oversight of whether an operator is effectively protecting children, while also meeting the strong privacy protection requirements set out in Bill C-36.

Bill S-209, Bill C-34 and Bill C-36 all share a common concern to ensure that children are kept safe online. The government plan includes strong privacy protection and a robust plan for actually carrying these measures out. Bill S-209, while well intended, would leave it to cabinet regulation and an institution yet to be named to iron out all of these details. It is almost as if the opposition wants to put all that trust into cabinet, which is curious given its position on most anything.

Bill C-34 and Bill C-36 together are a strong plan for protecting our kids and their data online, and that has already been laid out.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I am speaking to Bill S-209.

The Bloc Québécois is in favour of studying this bill in committee. I want to say that from the outset. Bill S-209 incorporates the main provisions of Bill S-210. The Bloc Québécois voted in favour of Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne's Bill S-210 at second reading stage during the last Parliament, so we are being consistent.

The new bill is essentially the same as the old one. The most significant change is that the bill's legal definitions now refer to “pornographic material” rather than “sexually explicit material”. This terminology is more in keeping with its intended purpose than the previous version.

I would also like to thank my colleague for sponsoring this bill in the House. This is an issue I follow very closely as my party's critic on this matter, as vice-chair of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women and the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, and as one of the co-chairs of the All-Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking.

I have been contacted many times with evidence that the pornography industry has a negative impact on young people. That is why I will be speaking about this today, explaining how this bill differs from the previous version, reiterating the negative effects of this industry and discussing another bill that addresses this issue, specifically Bill C-34.

First, with respect to the current bill, pornographic material means:

with the exception of the material referred to in the definition of child sexual abuse and exploitation material in paragraph 163.‍1(1)‍(a) of the Criminal Code, any photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means, that

(a) shows the genital organs or anal region of a person engaged or depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity; and

(b) is intended to cause sexual excitement.

In short, the definition is now limited to visual content. Bill S‑210, the previous version, also included audio and written material, but that is no longer the case. The current wording requires both explicit sexual activity and the intention to cause sexual excitement, which is narrower than the first reading version.

Otherwise, the bill's underlying principle remains the same: to make it harder for young people to access pornographic material by requiring pornographic websites to make sure only adults are accessing their site by instituting age verification mechanisms, since we know about that pornography can have damaging effects on children's healthy sexual development. We mentioned that we supported studying the bill in committee.

However, we do have a number of reservations, questions or concerns about the bill that we need to mention before sending it to committee.

First, we want to make sure that the age verification technologies protect users' security and privacy, especially since personal data may need to be collected for identity verification purposes. We just want to check that in committee. Second, we want to hear from experts about how effective and secure these age verification mechanisms are. Third, we want to hear from experts about the results and consequences of similar policies in other places around the world, such as states like Louisiana or Utah and Germany, where provisions like these have been implemented.

Bill S‑209 makes it an offence for organizations to make pornographic material available to young persons on the Internet. Furthermore, it enables a designated enforcement authority to take steps to prevent pornographic material from being made available to young persons on the Internet in Canada. To that end, it makes it an offence for organizations to make such material available to young people on the Internet for commercial purposes. The term “organization” has the same meaning as in section 2 of the Criminal Code, so it means a public body, body corporate, society, company, firm, partnership or association of persons that is created for a common purpose, has an operational structure and holds itself out to the public as an association of persons. This makes it possible to directly target commercial pornography distributors. There are even three defences.

Ultimately, what we are seeing is that the bill is motivated by a desire to better regulate online access to pornographic material through age verification, which is currently limited to a mere declaration. The digital landscape where our young people spend their time from childhood on unfortunately makes it easier to view degrading or even extreme content that normalizes the objectification of women and dominance relationships. This content, in the form of photos or videos, is shared on platforms owned by companies that do not meet any real requirements to verify that the people viewing it are adults.

It would be unrealistic to entrust the companies that distribute pornographic material with verifying the age of the person viewing the material. Instead, the bill would entrust this process to a third party, that is, an intermediary designated in the regulations. In addition, collection is limited to what is strictly necessary. This addition was recommended by the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada during the study of Bill S‑210. Notices must therefore contain relevant information about the regime, and the organization's observations must be taken into account in deciding whether there is a violation and in setting the amount. The bill now includes two paths. One is the criminal path with legal action, proof beyond a reasonable doubt and a court-imposed fine. The other is the administrative path, which does not focus on access by a minor but rather on a failure to comply with a notice. It is faster and does not require criminal proceedings.

The thing is, the legislation merely establishes the framework. Everything else is left to the regulations. The act does not specify who imposes the penalties, review and appeal mechanisms, the limitation period, the recovery method and so on. Now that information technology makes pornographic content easy to distribute and more widely available, the government has a duty to restrict minors' access to such material as much as possible given its obscene nature and its harmful effects on young people's brain development. Self-regulation will not suffice. Bill S‑209 lays out broad principles governing age verification to prevent persons under the age of 18 from accessing pornographic content. Once passed, the bill will authorize regulations establishing the specific framework required to achieve that.

This bill also has major consequences for pornographic websites that fail to comply with its provisions, whether those sites are hosted in Canada or elsewhere. The government will be able to block sites that fail to comply with eventual age verification regulations. Everyone is aware that this bill is not a silver bullet. A minor who wants to view pornography illegally could use workarounds to bypass the age verification mechanisms, for example, a VPN. This bill may not be the solution for completely eradicating this scourge, but there is a good chance that it will help to further restrict minors' access to pornography, so the bill will achieve its objective.

I recognize that this is an important health issue, and the Bloc Québécois will always stand in support of measures that seek to protect the public and promote healthy living. Bill S-209 responds to a real concern within our communities. With the increase in femicides and violence against women, our society has a duty to restrict, to the greatest extent possible, access to this explicit content that promotes such violence.

Many civil society organizations and stakeholders, including the Association des pédiatres du Québec, support the initiative in Bill S‑209. This proposal transcends party lines, and we hope that all political parties represented in the House of Commons will support it. Let us not forget that the widespread availability of online pornography poses significant risks to minors, that the average age of first exposure to pornography is 12, and that one-third of children are exposed to it before the age of 10. Violent images can foster misconceptions about sex and specifically about consent, so they are a public health and safety concern.

The Standing Committee on the Status of Women has previously studied the trafficking of women, girls and gender-diverse people. While we cannot comment on the committee's subsequent findings, a number of speakers emphasized in their briefs that human trafficking is closely linked to pornography and coercive relationships between pimps and victims. By its very nature, Bill S‑209 will serve to mitigate the distribution of pornography on the Internet and protect victims from humiliating exposure to illegal material. Holding organizations accountable and imposing a new offence if they make such content available will give victims an additional tool to regain their dignity and punish their abuser.

Finally, on June 10, 2026, the Carney government introduced Bill C‑34, which enacts the—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I have to interrupt the member. Members cannot use the Prime Minister's name in the House. Indeed, members must use his title.

I will now let the member for Shefford continue her speech.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government introduced Bill C-34. This is a revised and expanded version of the former Bill C-63, which dealt with online harms. Ottawa is requiring social media platforms and major pornography websites to verify each user's age. This is a complete 180, as the Liberals previously voted against the bill. I hope that, following committee consideration, we will be able to work together to avoid any overlap between these two bills and any duplication of effort.

In conclusion, it remains to be seen how we will examine them. I sincerely hope that this bill will go to committee, as it helps to protect minors' mental health and healthy development from the harmful effects of online sexually explicit material.

[Sandra Cobena, Conservative, Newmarket—Aurora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there should be some things in this House that rise above politics, and protecting our children is one of them. That is why Bill S-209 has earned support from across party lines and across political traditions. Whether we sit on the government benches or the opposition benches, or whether we are Conservative, Liberal, NDP, Bloc or independent, surely we can agree on something this basic: A child should not be one click away from pornography.

I am pleased to rise today in support of Bill S-209. I would like to thank Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne for bringing this bill forward once again and for the many years of work she has poured into it. This bill would require commercial pornography websites to take meaningful steps to prevent children from accessing their content.

As a mother, I find it deeply troubling that it is 2026, and we still have to debate whether those safeguards should exist. We would never accept a 10-year-old walking into a liquor store and being told, “We trust you to make choices on your own because you're old enough.” We would never accept a child walking into a casino without checking their age. However, today, a child can pick up a phone, click a link and enter a commercial pornography website. That makes no sense and parents know it.

As a mother, I think about the moment when our children begin exploring the world on their own. They ask questions. They become curious. They start using a phone or a tablet to look something up, watch a video or talk to a friend. As parents, we want to give them the room to learn and grow, but we also need reasonable safeguards while they do. Right now, a child can encounter pornography without even looking for it. A link can appear in a group chat, a search can land somewhere unexpected or something can appear on the screen before a child can even understand what they are seeing. Once a child sees it, parents cannot make them unsee it. Of course, we all know that once a child has lost their innocence, it cannot be gained back. That alone is a main concern.

However, this issue goes beyond accidental exposure. As children grow, they naturally begin asking questions about themselves, relationships and the world around them. That curiosity is part of growing up. The problem is that today, a commercial pornography website can only be one click away, often without a meaningful check that the person entering is actually an adult. What might a child find there? They may see violence or degradation. They may see women and girls treated as though their wishes do not matter. Without the maturity to understand what they are watching, they may begin to mistake pornography for an education in relationships.

Those are lessons no child should be learning from a pornographic website. Research puts the average age of the first exposure at 12. One-third of children are exposed by the age of 10 years old. At 10, many children are still learning how to understand their own feelings, let alone how to interpret explicit material created for adults.

Research has associated young people's exposure to pornography with harmful beliefs about relationships, including beliefs concerning consent and the treatment of women and girls. The bill recognizes concerns about material depicting violence, reinforcing gender stereotypes and contributing to attitudes favourable to harassment and violence. There are legitimate concerns about children's development and safety, because children are still developing their understanding of relationships, boundaries and behaviour.

Repeated exposure to pornography can shape what a young person begins to see as normal and expected, and that has real consequences for how they understand themselves and others. What does commercial pornography teach children about consent, dignity and respect? Those are questions that matter to parents raising their children, and they matter to the society those children will inherit.

Parents are already doing everything they can to help their children navigate these issues with care and with honesty, but no parent can watch every screen, every search result, every message and every link every minute of the day. Children can use the Internet at home, at school and with their friends, so yes, we should give parents the tool, but we should also expect the companies making money from this content to take responsibility.

The principle behind Bill S-209 is simple: If someone makes money selling adult content, they have a responsibility to make a reasonable effort to ensure that the person accessing it is actually an adult. That should not be controversial. We already accept that principle in the physical world. We place age restrictions on alcohol, cannabis and gambling. We do not tell parents that it is entirely their responsibility; we require the business to check. Why should the online world be any different?

Children deserve better, and we owe them better. They deserve the freedom to be curious and to discover the world without being confronted with explicit material they are simply too young to understand. Protecting childhood is part of our responsibility as adults, as parents and as legislators.

Bill S-209 would give that responsibility practical meaning. It would make it an offence for an organization to make pornographic material available online for commercial purposes to a person under 18 years of age. A company could not simply say that it is assumed that a visitor was an adult. It would have to demonstrate it used an approved method of determining age. The bill would also establish significant fines for companies that fail to take that responsibility seriously.

We know that many of these websites operate outside Canada, but the fact that a company is somewhere else in the world does not make its content any less accessible to a child sitting in a bedroom in Newmarket, Aurora or anywhere else in this country. That is why the bill would provide an enforcement process where, after notice and continued non-compliance, the enforcement authority could seek a federal court order requiring Internet service providers to prevent access to the material in Canada.

Ultimately, a court would make that decision. The principle remains the same, though: Responsibility belongs to the organizations commercially distributing the pornography. If they profit from providing adult content, they must take meaningful steps to keep children from accessing it.

Some people have raised legitimate concerns about privacy, and those concerns deserve to be taken seriously. Bill S-209 would take them seriously. Approved methods would have to meet privacy requirements, including limiting the collection of personal information, using information for age-assurance purposes and destroying information once the process is complete. Canada's Privacy Commissioner, Philippe Dufresne, has supported the objective of Bill S-209 and has said that privacy-protective age assurance can be an appropriate tool for creating safer online experiences for children. We do not have to choose between protecting privacy and protecting children from pornography. We can and should do both.

No law can guarantee that a child will never encounter pornography online. Children are resourceful, and technology changes, but the fact that we cannot prevent every exposure is no excuse for preventing none. Age restrictions do not prevent every underage person from obtaining alcohol. We still require them, because safeguards matter, accountability matters and making it harder for children to access something intended for adults matters.

For me as a mother, this is where the issue becomes very simple. We cannot keep our children little forever, nor should we. They will grow, and they will ask questions, and part of being a parent is answering those questions honestly and helping our children understand the world they are entering. However, children deserve the opportunity to learn about relationships, consent, dignity and respect from the people who love them and care about the adults they will become. Parents are doing their part every day. Let us give our children the time and space to simply be children.

[Bobby Morrissey, Liberal, Egmont, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House this afternoon speaking in support of Bill S-209. I want to begin by looking at the journey of how we arrived here. The bill was introduced in the Senate by Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne. Senator Miville-Dechêne was appointed in 2018. Then, the bill came to the House on two occasions, but because of the calendar, the bill died on the Order Paper.

I am going to focus my comments on the process of how we arrived here and one of two routes this chamber can take for where the bill would go from here. Most would agree we are at a time when Canadians are looking to parliamentarians to come together on certain issues, and this should be one of those issues. All parliamentarians would agree that the House should take steps to prevent very young children from accessing pornography online.

I have been listening to a number of previous speakers. The parliamentary secretary, in his comments, said the government supports the objective of the bill, which is extremely important, and I would expect all members sitting in this chamber do. One of the benefits of Parliament is the diverse basis of opinion that comes to debate in the House and the recognition that each member brings a particular area that they focus on.

When the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake approached me this past spring to say that she was going to sponsor this particular Senate bill in the House and ask if I would consider supporting it, I reflected for a moment. I will acknowledge that there are probably numerous topics that the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster—Meadow Lake and I do not agree on, but on this matter, I will be clear. One thing the member is very passionate about and uncompromising about is the protection of children, family and her children. I see that from time to time because the member brings her children to the committee room from time to time, so I was not surprised that the member would choose in particular a bill like Bill S-209 as her private member's bill.

The bill gives us all sides. We have heard from one other opposition party in the House that is supportive of the bill's getting to committee. The committee is the process for all legislation to get a thorough analysis and a good review. Changes that are required from time to time can be made there, as members are aware. Therefore, I had no hesitation in indicating that I would be supportive of Bill S-209. Again, I doubt that there would be any member in the chamber who would not be supportive of the objectives of Bill S-209.

At the same time, I am well aware that the government has introduced two pieces of legislation, Bill C-34 and Bill C-36. Some will say they are more comprehensive in the area being addressed by this particular private member's bill, but all are aiming in the same direction of putting real consequences on those who choose to make decisions that allow young people access to pornography.

My sense is that there is a very general understanding of and support for the context of this particular private member's bill. I, for one, as I indicated, will be supporting the bill when it comes back to the House for a vote. I look forward to it getting to committee so that witnesses can appear and the committee can do a very thorough analysis of the bill.

As I indicated in my earlier comments, Bill S-209, Bill C-34 and Bill C-36 are leading in a direction that all members of this chamber, I assume, will be supportive of. However, the ability to be supportive of and have a candid debate on all aspects of the legislation is extremely important. Bill S-209, in my opinion, deserves to get to a stage where it gets a more thorough analysis, which would be in the committee format. That is why I will be supporting it. There will be some discussion about the impact on government legislation versus private members' legislation, but to my earlier comments, this is one subject that all members of this House should come together on and support to ensure that this particular bill gets before a committee so that it might have the opportunity to complement government legislation and make it better in some places.

I believe my time is coming to an end, but the bill speaks for itself. I am in agreement with the commentary made by the speakers who spoke to the bill earlier. I am looking forward to hearing more debate.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

The Economy

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in and ask for more with respect to the answer I received back in the previous session on affordability. I know my colleague from Whitby is going to respond to the question I am going to ask him. We have had a lot of good, partisan sparring back and forth over the years, for a long time.

I am going to bring this down to a constituent level because I just received an email from a senior lady in my riding at 2:03 p.m. this afternoon. I am going to read this and talk about the affordability issues people are facing so we can have a conversation, on a real constituent basis, about what is going on in people's daily lives.

It says, “I'm 74. My husband is 75. We get nothing extra from the federal government. When I say 'we', I mean the seniors who have paid income taxes on all the money we've scrimped and saved over our working years while paying for our children's child care and food. This money was to see us through our retirement years. All that hard work so we can enjoy our golden years was for what? We still have to scrimp and save so we can afford food and shelter.

“The Liberals keep going on about how much they've done for everyone, including the seniors, so they can afford to pay for food. This is a lot of poppycock. They say, ‘Look at how many are registered for the seniors dental program.’ That is all fine and dandy, but how many of those registered actually qualify? This is the number that really matters. My husband and I are registered, but our combined income means we don't qualify. If it was not for investments we saved for over 40 years, we would not be able to afford to retire. To make matters worse, the investment income is all taxable.

“Sorry for the long rant. I just get so frustrated when the Liberals keep saying that they're helping us but everything keeps going up and our income stays the same. Keep up the good work. Janet.”

What I am wondering for Janet is—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

There is heckling from the other side, which is interesting.

Mr. Speaker, she said they do not qualify for the dental program, if the Liberal members would listen to what I say. This is what the Liberals do. They dismiss what everyday Canadians are talking about and the issues they are facing.

I want to ask this of my friend from Whitby, who I think is here for the right reasons, though we have different opinions.

Every day in question period, the Liberals get up and say, “Oh, but there's a dental program.” For seniors like Janet and her husband, because of their retirement income, they do not qualify, so they do not get anything. They are frustrated seniors who are not really seeing any of the benefit of these programs, but their income is being taxed, and that is going to pay for programs for other people. They are in a really tough situation.

What would Ryan say to Janet right now?

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Before I recognize the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, I will give just a friendly reminder to members not to use the first names of other members in the House.

That being said, the hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Regina—Lewvan and I have enjoyed some good partisan sparring, which is part of the sport of the House. I know that the member opposite is a good sport in that regard. We have had many disagreements, but we both respect one another at the end of the day, and I appreciate him for that.

Our government understands that we are strongest when we take care of one another and we ensure that everyone has a chance to get ahead. That includes our seniors, but it also includes all of the population, and our government is really working to make life more affordable for all Canadians.

I cite the groceries and essentials benefit that is helping 12 million Canadians with payments. It was the GST rebate, as members will note, but it has been significantly increased. It pays out an average of $1,890 for a dual-income family, the average family, so that is not insignificant support. It is actually quite significant for many families. The amount to be paid is going to increase 25% over five years, beginning in July, and the top-up is indexed to inflation. This means payments will go out every year to match future increases in the consumer price index. This is just one of many things we have done.

There is also the Canada child benefit, the Canada disability benefit, the guaranteed income supplement and many more. The member opposite mentioned dental care. We also increased OAS by 10% for our seniors in a previous iteration of our party. Those are significant changes that have improved the social safety net in Canada and helped families right across the country.

Let us talk about tax cuts. The first thing the government did under the current Prime Minister was an income tax cut for 22 million Canadians. We eliminated the consumer carbon tax. We suspended the fuel excise tax over the summer, and just recently we tabled legislation to extend that for another five months until January 2027. I am sure the member opposite can agree that those are tangible, cost-saving measures. I know that his constituents did not send him here to vote against those types of measures and then stand up the next moment and claim that the Liberals are not doing enough for vulnerable people in this country.

Can the member opposite explain to his constituents why he votes against every affordability measure that enhances support for seniors, for families, for single mothers and for all Canadians, with broad-based measures that are cutting taxes for Canadians? It seems to me that tax relief is something the Conservatives have advocated for. We have only eliminated, suspended, cut and reduced taxes under the Prime Minister's leadership. Why would the member opposite oppose tax relief for his constituents?

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate some of the member's responses. He and I will debate another day how many times he voted in favour of the consumer carbon tax and how he was one of the main cheerleaders for the consumer carbon tax until he found it not to be beneficial to his election options. He realized that it was very unpopular, so then instead of being for it, he was against it.

I also agree with the cutting of the gas tax. We talked about that for years and years, but last session, the member voted four or five times against cutting the gas tax, when the Conservatives brought a motion forward that resembles Bill C-38, which the Liberals just brought forward, so he also voted against that not so long ago.

The member is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. I do like to have this debate back and forth because he did talk about a whole suite of programs. How much would it cost the Liberals to cut taxes so people had more money in their pockets and not have some of those programs?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite knows that we are in a trade war. The country is facing significant headwinds, and we have used the fiscal capacity we have responsibly to invest in the Canadian economy, which is growing. There was 3.3% GDP growth in the last quarter, which is significant. The government diversified trade by signing 20 new trade agreements. Jobs have grown at twice the pace they have in the United States, with 217,000 net new jobs in Canada. Wages have outpaced inflation. We have had two consecutive months of real GDP per capita growth.

That is not to mention the $500 billion in new commitments from Canadian financial institutions and pension funds to deploy their capital here in Canada to help that capital build the infrastructure and grow the economy that all Canadians need so they can have a better standard of living.

Health

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the former CEO of Canada Health Infoway, Michael Green, was fired after the Conservatives exposed his role in the $300-million PrescribeIT scandal. We have since obtained his termination letter. That termination letter granted Mr. Green a massive severance package that included a full year of salary and benefits, months of pension contributions, months of car allowance, vacation pay, more performance pay and an additional bonus after he was fired for the $300-million failure.

The health minister's very own official is on the board of Canada Health Infoway, so my question is simple: Did the health minister's representative vote in favour of this massive severance package for PrescribeIT's CEO, yes or no?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue and to the Secretary of State (Canada Revenue Agency and Financial Institutions)]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Riding Mountain for giving me a chance to reiterate the statement that the Minister of Health made on this topic in June. Since it was the last day before the House rose, he might have missed what she said, so I will repeat it now. She said:

Canada Health Infoway (“Infoway”) was established in 2001 with a mandate to break down silos in our healthcare system, modernise health data infrastructure, and improve access, quality and productivity of care for all Canadians.

While many Canadians have benefitted from Infoway's work, important questions have been raised in recent months about accountability and value-for-money.

To ensure Infoway is best positioned to fulfill its mandate effectively and efficiently while delivering value to Canadians, the Minister of Health has directed the launch of a multi-phase review. The review will include an independent, third-party audit, complemented by a comprehensive strategic review of the organisation's governance structures and operations.

Phase one will assess Infoway's compliance with the terms and conditions of its contribution agreement, followed by a wider strategic review that includes but is not limited to examining the organisation's funding model, program delivery, effectiveness, mandate, bylaws, corporate policies, governance framework, executive leadership and compensation practices, and reporting mechanisms.

Stakeholder consultations will also be undertaken to provide insight on Infoway's strengths, opportunities for improvement, and role within Canada's health ecosystem.

As our government works to break down silos in our healthcare system, this review will ensure that Infoway is adopting best practices and that all available steps are taken to build a modern, accountable, health data system that improves care for all Canadians.

The review process will commence immediately and continue over the coming months. Upon completion, the Government of Canada will publish key findings and outline next steps.

Is that enough? I will let the Auditor General respond to that, because just over a week after the minister made that statement, the Auditor General said, “We have been informed by Health Canada that they are planning a review of Canada Health Infoway. I am of the view that conducting a performance audit at this time would be duplicative and therefore of limited added value for Parliamentarians and Canadians.”

Seeing as the member for Riding Mountain was a member of the health committee when it asked the Auditor General to look into the matter, I would hope that the Auditor General's response is enough for the member. There are third party reviews of the program taking place right now. We should allow this important work to take place free of the kind of political interference that the Conservatives are calling for and are known for.

[Dan Mazier, Conservative, Riding Mountain, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals did not answer my question. He was going on about an auditor trail. He did not answer my question. My question was about a severance package awarded to the CEO who oversaw the $300-million PrescribeIT failure.

The health minister's very own official is on Canada Health Infoway's board. My question was simple: Did the health minister's representative vote in favour of the massive severance package for the PrescribeIT CEO, yes or no?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that in the review taking place as we speak, there is a review of all the governance structures, the compensation packages, leadership, performance, etc.

The Conservatives wanted the Auditor General to look into this matter. She has stated very clearly that she believes the measures announced by the minister are enough and that it would be duplicative for the Auditor General to do her own review. As the minister has said, the third party review and audit are under way. We look forward to seeing the results.

Public Services and Procurement

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question about corruption surrounding the Liberal government's now infamous lease with Maritime Launch Services for a so-called space port. We know that the government entered into this lease, notwithstanding that Maritime Launch Services had no history of launching anything into space. Indeed, Maritime Launch Services had a history of not doing much of anything because Maritime Launch Services was a practically bankrupt company, sustaining a loss of $47 million and with revenue of just $15,000 in 2025.

As such, it is no wonder that the share value of Maritime Launch Services was practically worthless, but then the Liberals entered into the so-called space port lease on March 16 of this year, and rather conveniently, the Liberals backdated the lease by one full year to 2025, funnelling $20 million tax dollars to Maritime Launch Services for no work and no value, effectively bailing out Maritime Launch Services.

What was the consequence of that? Surprise, surprise, the share value of Maritime Launch Services soared, and immediately following that, within three weeks, the chair of the board sold three million previously worthless shares, walking away with $1.8 million. He became a millionaire overnight.

Do members know what that is called? It is called “pump and dump”. Do members know what else it is called? It is called “corruption”, which the Liberals allowed to happen because they failed to take the most basic of measures to prevent this kind of insider profiteering, such as, for example, insisting upon a lock-up agreement. Why did they not do that? Why did they allow this to happen? Is it because this type of corruption is business as usual with the Liberals?

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, this is about how we are developing sovereign capabilities that contribute to Canada's defence and security, our economy and our future. One example is sovereign space launch capability, which is clearly set out in Canada's very first defence industrial strategy.

Canada is the only G7 country without sovereign space launch capability. For a country with such a long and successful history in the space sector, this is a strategic shortcoming.

Space-based systems now underpin essential military, government and civilian services. Having our own launch capability gives Canada greater control over how and when we put critical infrastructure into orbit. Last year, the Department of National Defence looked at available domestic options and considered a range of factors, including regulatory readiness, geographic suitability, operational requirements and the overall ability to support Canada's long-term space objectives. Maritime Launch Services met the necessary environmental and aeronautical safety requirements. The company also demonstrated a level of readiness that aligned with broader defence and economic objectives in the defence industrial strategy.

As with any decision related to government procurement, the Department of National Defence entered into this agreement in accordance with the established rules regarding ethics, conflicts of interest and accountability.

The hon. member also questioned the value of this investment. However, this is about much more than just access to a piece of land. This investment seeks to give Canada the infrastructure necessary to conduct launches from our own soil. It also seeks to reduce our dependence on foreign suppliers and to strengthen our capacity to manage our space capabilities independently.

After weighing the options, we deemed the use of provincial Crown land as an appropriate and low-risk way to provide secure access to a launch site while at the same time avoiding the additional costs, delays and challenges associated with any federal land acquisition process.

The site near Canso, Nova Scotia, offers some important advantages, such as access to open ocean, which is desirable for space launches. It also offers a full range of launch trajectories for earth observation, communications satellites and future defence activities.

The investment also creates economic opportunities. Our agreement with MLS requires that 90% of the project funding be spent in Canada or with Canadian-owned businesses. This will ensure that the vast majority of this $200-million investment will support Canadian workers and communities.

Canada is seeing record investments in space sector research and development from these companies, and projects like this signal that Canada is laying the foundation to support those investments and ensure future opportunities. This project also provides Canada with the opportunity to offer space launch services both commercially and to our allies.

We can be proud of Canada's legacy in space. From the Canadarm to advanced satellite technologies, generations of Canadians have consistently been at the forefront of innovation and exploration. Building Canada strong means investing in the technologies that will shape the future. Canada's growing space sector is creating good jobs, strengthening sovereignty and ensuring that Canadians remain leaders in innovation for decades to come.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Sturgeon River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question was about pump and dump. It was about corruption.

Here we have the Liberal government funnelling $20 million to Maritime Launch Services, bailing out a nearly bankrupt company, upon which the chair of the board immediately sells three million of his shares, walking away with $1.8 million.

Does the parliamentary secretary consider that to be normal? Is that just business as usual with the Liberals? How can the parliamentary secretary justify this type of corruption?

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Let us be clear, Mr. Speaker. Sovereign space launch capabilities are a strategic imperative for Canada. Canada is currently the only G7 country without sovereign space launch capabilities. We are in the process of addressing that strategic gap. Our approach will enable Canada to exercise more control over essential space infrastructure.

This is about building Canada strong. It is about investing in Canadian industry, unlocking the full potential of our innovation economy and creating high-quality jobs here at home. It is about developing the critical infrastructure and capabilities that strengthen our sovereignty, enhance our security and support a more resilient Canadian economy.

We will build in Canada, we will invest in Canadian workers and Canadian innovation, and we will ensure Canada remains a strong, sovereign and trusted leader in the space domain.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:52 p.m.)