Andréanne Larouche

“I want us to send this bill to committee for study. It would make pornographic websites check that users are adults, which helps protect children from harmful content and violence. We support the idea, but the committee needs to make sure the age checks protect people's privacy and actually work.”

“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—”

“I want the Liberals to vote to send this bill to committee. They voted against an older version over privacy concerns. The privacy commissioner says this new bill protects privacy better.”

“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.”

“I oppose this bill because it hurts workers' rights, the environment, and democracy. It removes a rule that would have let us review the minister's powers after five years. I want the member to explain why they are taking away that review.”

“Madam Speaker, as the Bloc Québécois critic for labour, human resources and skills development, I had the opportunity to speak yesterday and clearly demonstrate how workers’ rights are being eroded. The members opposite laughed in my face, but what I read yesterday were comments from organized labour. These were initial reactions. I also talked a lot about setbacks for the environment, but I ended by talking about setbacks for democracy. What does my colleague think about that? Yesterday, I did not have time to say that we found out that in Bill C‑39, the Liberals are undoing the amendment that one of my colleagues made to Bill C‑5, which made the minister’s powers subject to a five-year sunset clause. Now there will be no way of reviewing the minister’s decisions after the fact. My colleague talked about collaboration, proposals, amendments and improvements, but this change is unacceptable from a democratic standpoint. I would like my colleague to talk a bit about that.”

In response to a question from Elizabeth May

“The Prime Minister wants to help oil and gas companies instead of fighting climate change. This bill weakens independent environmental reviews and ignores science so those companies get what they want.”

“Mr. Speaker, it is simply because the Prime Minister has decided to continue the process of turning Canada into an oil monarchy that serves the interests of oil and gas companies. As I said, the lack of transparency and the setbacks that will be introduced by this large—what I call “mammoth”—bill will remove a layer of independence. The government will no longer listen to science and independent people so that it can conduct environmental assessments based on facts and science. Instead, it will ensure that the process serves the interests of oil and gas companies.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Steven MacKinnon

“I oppose this bill. It takes power away from the minister and gives it to a board that is not accountable to Parliament. This hurts workers' rights and democracy.”

“Mr. Speaker, what I have read about that report, and more notably what we are hearing, is that this bill merely shifts the responsibility and frees the minister from accountability, particularly with regard to government intervention under section 107 of the Canada Labour Code. It ensures that the minister is not held accountable by Parliament. The members opposite may well laugh, but that is what will happen with this bill. We are placing this responsibility on the shoulders of a board that will not be accountable to us, the MPs. In terms of the rule of law, democracy and workers’ rights, this is a serious matter.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 94% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“I will vote against this bill. It weakens workers' right to strike and gives ministers too much power to stop labour disputes. It also rushes environmental reviews for big projects, hurts nature, and ignores Quebec's rights.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-39, a bill that we feel is a drastic step backwards when it comes to the environment, workers’ rights and democracy. I will set the stage. This bill pre-approves projects by turning the environmental assessment process for pipelines and nuclear power into a mere formality. It weakens workers’ rights, limits the right to strike and significantly undermines workers’ rights. It gives more power to the executive branch and ministers while diminishing the role of Parliament. It privatizes ports, following the privatization of airports. In short, this bill has nothing to do with a strong Canada. It is a nearly 250-page omnibus bill designed to weaken democracy. The Liberals are using the tariff crisis as an excuse to quietly pass permanent measures that will cause us to lose ground. In five minutes, the government is eliminating gains for the environment and workers’ rights that took years to achieve. The Bloc Québécois will not accept this backsliding and will stand up for workers’ rights and the right of Quebeckers to live in a healthy environment. I will talk more specifically about the backsliding when it comes to workers’ rights, the environment and democracy. Let us talk about workers rights. As the Bloc Québécois labour critic, I can confirm that there have been a lot of negative reactions. I will talk about the Canadian Labour Congress’ reaction, which was swift. According to the Canadian Labour Congress, a red line has been crossed when it comes to workers’ bargaining rights and right to strike. The consensus among the country’s unions is that this is an affront to workers’ rights. As the bill currently stands, the balance between the parties and industrial peace will be severely disrupted. The Canadian Labour Congress wants the full repeal of the provisions on the right to strike and the overhaul of section 107. Minister Hajdu claims that the bill does not weaken the right to strike, but that is not true. The Canadian Labour Congress believes the opposite is true. The provisions on section 107 are the worst attack on bargaining rights and the right to strike. This is one of the most serious, if not unprecedented, attempts in the country’s history. Also according to the Canadian Labour Congress, no compromises are being made, but the government is asking workers to fully submit, which in no way motivates workers to build the country. This bill is very demotivating. Employers have no incentive to negotiate, because all they have to do is allow a labour dispute to escalate and the Canada Industrial Relations Board and, ultimately, the minister will order them back to work. There are no guardrails, despite what the government claims. This gives the minister almost absolute power. No G7 country allows this type of approach in labour law. Just as he did before, the minister will be able to decide when a strike will take place, how long it will last, when it will end and which economic sectors will be able to strike and which ones will not be able to exercise that right. The Canadian Labour Congress is deeply concerned about the introduction of the concepts of “national interest” and “serious social disruption”. The bill does not define them, so current and subsequent ministers will be able to interpret these two concepts as they see fit. The Canadian Labour Congress is currently assessing all the legal options. In its view, the section that regulates strikes and the use of section 107 is in violation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, specifically the freedom of association. The government wants to impose these new rules as quickly as possible, before the four cases that are currently before various courts across the country can submit their interpretations of section 107. The Canadian Labour Congress has pointed out that, before governments began misusing section 107, a bill had to be introduced, a debate had to take place and parliamentarians had to vote on legislation aimed at resolving a labour dispute. A right that cannot be exercised is, ultimately, not actually a right at all. If the bill remains unchanged, it will harm non-unionized workers. Compromises between employers and trade unions establish acceptable norms and standards across many economic sectors. Stifling the trade unions’ right to strike is tantamount to stifling negotiated agreements and reasonable compromises. In other words, it is six of one, half a dozen of the other. The only thing that will change is the messenger. To release the minister from her responsibility, the burden shifts to the Canada Industrial Relations Board, which is not answerable for its decisions to the House of Commons. It also allows the board to impose administrative monetary penalties against good-faith negotiations. Who ends up deciding what constitutes good faith? It also raises questions concerning disputes between Crown corporation employees and the government. The bill allows for subjectivity by introducing national interest and serious social disruption as criteria for issuing back-to-work orders. The minister and her successors are left to interpret that as they wish and as their tolerance for dissent allows. The Bloc Québécois remains committed to defending workers’ right to organize, to strike and to seek better wages and benefits. As I said earlier, a red line has been crossed, and workers’ rights are not negotiable. The provisions relating to section 107 of the Canada Labour Code are a definite step backward for bargaining rights and the right to strike. They are buried in an omnibus bill that, as I said, is nearly 250 pages long. This is one of the most serious attacks on the right to strike. My time is running out, but there is so much more to say about this bill. I will say a few words about environmental policy rollbacks. I know that many of my colleagues will want to talk about that, including my colleague from Repentigny. I am sure he will have the opportunity to do so. Over the summer, a number of groups shared their concerns about environmental policy rollbacks with me. Members of the Eastern Townships branch of Mothers Step In met with me even before this bill was introduced. Given everything the Liberal government was doing, they were already very worried about the prospect of such rollbacks. What we know is that, during public consultations in 2026, citizens expressed legitimate concerns about shortened timelines and fewer opportunities for public participation, as well as the risk of projects being approved without a full understanding of the environmental impacts, which could lead to long-term environmental damage and much higher rehabilitation costs. In addition, the mandatory fast-tracking of timelines for environmental assessments does not guarantee the quality and scientific integrity of the assessments. Approving projects before assessments are complete contradicts the inherent logic and purpose of environmental assessments. What would happen if a project that has already begun with the government’s approval is later found to run afoul of the law and found to carry health and environmental risks that outweigh the project’s economic benefits? Well, it is going to be too late. Authorizing work prior to final approval leads to it being seen as a done deal. In addition, there are provisions that would give the government the power to later change conditions that it originally imposed to approve a project. This means that the government could approve projects under certain environmental conditions and then simply remove those conditions. I could also talk about the fact that the Impact Assessment Agency of Canada would no longer do impact assessments. That, too, is absurd. Having the Canada Energy Regulator assess pipeline projects could potentially constitute a conflict of interest. Environmental assessments for nuclear projects are to be handed over to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission, or CNSC, even though reports from the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development have already pointed out the CNSC’s lack of independence from the Department of Natural Resources. This could even weaken the Species at Risk Act. All of this is gradually eroding our democracy. On top of the democratic erosion and the fact that this bill violates other laws, there is also the issue of commercial zones, which could be an intrusion into Quebec’s jurisdictions. The Carney government is ignoring Quebec and the provinces by subjecting transportation companies to yet another new body, the national trade corridors council. The government therefore introduced Bill C-39, an act respecting certain measures to strengthen the economy. The Bloc Québécois read and analyzed the bill. The measures it contains seek to dismantle, weaken or circumvent laws that protect the public, workers and the environment. It seems to favour specific economic interests to the detriment of democratic interests. It is completely ridiculous. What we also see is that the main goal of the government’s Bill C-39 is to make certain laws inoperative, which is another troubling setback for democracy. Who will be responsible for deciding in advance whether these projects are in the national interest? That, too, is a troubling setback. The Bloc Québécois will not endorse such an authoritarian view of public authority. Even in the context of a trade crisis, we cannot agree to such a centralization of power and such a devaluation of the law. Ministers in the Liberal government have said the following two things when introducing Bill C‑39: that Bill C‑39 will not weaken environmental requirements and that it will not weaken workers’ rights. Well, both of those statements are false. The Bloc Québécois will prove it. I have purposely left out a number of elements, since we will come back to them later. The proof is in the pudding: All it takes is to read the provisions of Bill C‑39. We will vote against Bill C‑39, just as we voted against Bill C-5, the Building Canada Act. The trade environment should not be used as an excuse. Quebeckers can count on the Bloc Québécois not to fuel this narrative of Canadian sovereignty, which is nothing more than a narrative that serves the private interests that the Liberal Prime Minister alone decides to serve.”

• Personal attack
  ?

  Speech on a bill

  Respect 98 of 100

  This statement targeted a person rather than their actions or views: “a narrative that serves the private interests that the Liberal Prime Minister alone decides to serve”.

  See full analysis →

“I am asking the House for permission to share my speaking time with the member for Joliette—Manawan.”

“Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to share my time with my excellent colleague from Joliette—Manawan.”

“The Conservatives are spreading false information about this bill. People will still have the right to protest, but the law must be able to stop protests that spread hate.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to echo the sentiments of my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord and reiterate another point. Certain groups have written to us because there has been a great deal of disinformation coming from the Conservatives. At the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the Bloc Québécois tabled certain amendments it felt were essential. During one debate, I even heard people go so far as to say that people would no longer be able to protest. Normally, a protest is a legitimate exercise of freedom of expression. I do hope, however, that if a protest is intended to incite hatred, there will be tools available to intervene.”

“The government changed the rules for a seniors funding program. Groups now need to register as businesses to apply, which takes too long and shuts out small local groups. I want the government to delay these changes so groups have time to apply.”

“Mr. Speaker, the reform of the New Horizons program is putting community projects for seniors at risk. Our organizations have one month to submit their projects. In the meantime, Ottawa now requires them to register as a business, which can take up to 10 months. In addition, the criteria exclude small groups like some local FADOQs and Cercles de fermières; their parent organizations are registered, but they are not. Ottawa needs to give organizations time to meet the requirements and ensure that none of them are disqualified due to the new criteria. Will the government postpone its reform?”