Pauline Rochefort

In response to a question from Rechie Valdez

“Countries like Australia and the United Kingdom are taking action on online safety for the reasons the member mentioned. Canada needs to take action now too.”

“Madam Speaker, I would simply like to respond by saying that there is a reason democracies around the world, from Australia to the United Kingdom, are taking action on this issue. It is exactly for the reason the member described, and this is why it is timely for us to take action as a country.”

In response to a question from Michelle Rempel Garner

“I want this bill to pass. People in my rural riding strongly support it because they worry about children 16 and under using social media. Social media has benefits, but it also needs rules.”

“Madam Speaker, yes, certainly I am from what we would define as a northern rural community. Actually, in the past month or so, we have been making many calls to residents in our riding. There is very strong support for this particular bill, and there is concern around social media exposure for kids 16 and under. I do recognize all the benefits she pointed out, and I do not disagree with what she said. At the same time, there is a world out there that is also in need of some regulation, and that is what this bill is proposing.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 46 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Steeve Lavoie

“I support this bill and will vote for it. It protects children online by banning kids under 16 from social media accounts unless the app proves it is safe. It also sets up a commission to oversee these companies and forces them to remove harmful content, like shared private photos, within hours.”

“Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-34, an act to enact the digital safety act and the digital safety commission of Canada act. I want residents of Nipissing—Timiskaming to know why I will be voting for this bill, so I will explain. I will start with a question. It will show my age, but the question is simple. Do members remember when keeping a child safe meant knowing where they were and who they were with? Many parents and grandparents will remember those days. The rule was simple: Be home before dark. Today, a child can be sitting beside a parent in the living room and talking to someone online who the parent knows nothing about. The child is home, and the parent feels reassured, but the risks on the screen may be hidden. The front door may be locked, but the phone is still connected. A cruel message can arrive at any hour, a humiliating image can spread in seconds, and bullying can follow a child home from school. Childhood has changed. Parenting, as my colleague described previously, has become more complicated. Living in a peaceful northern Ontario community does not shield a child from online harm. We protect children at school and on our roads. They deserve the same protection online. Parents, schools and governments all have a role to play, and so do the companies behind TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, YouTube, others that may be out there and others that will come. I think it is very important to note that all these companies provide so many benefits. They bring benefits to our lives. In northern Ontario, where distances are part of our daily life, online platforms help young people stay close to friends and family, including their grandparents. They help them learn, create and connect. Those connections matter, and there are many more benefits we could talk about. Our task is to preserve those benefits while reducing the risks. The evidence shows that action is needed. According to Statistics Canada, one in four young Canadians aged 12 to 17 reported experiencing cyber-bullying in the previous year. Among young people who have a hard time making friends, that number is even higher, at one in three. Let us think about that. These are young people who struggle to make connections, who go online and are subjected to cyber-bullying. Behind these figures lie children, families and very real suffering. What would Bill C-34 do? I will highlight the three major changes. First, it would provide stronger protection for children under 16. The bill would prevent children under 16 from having accounts on social media services. However, a platform could receive an exemption if it demonstrated adequate safeguards for children. That gives companies an incentive to act and an incentive to make their services safer. Second, the bill would create a digital safety commission. It would review companies’ safety plans and oversee whether they are meeting their duties. If a company is earning money supplying services to Canadians, it only makes sense that it should explain how it is managing those risks. Someone should be there to check whether its measures are adequate. That would be the role of the digital safety commission. Third, the bill would require action on some of the most harmful material online. This includes content that sexually victimizes a child and intimate images shared without consent. The proposed framework would require these types of content to be made inaccessible within hours of being either identified by the service provider or flagged by a user. Members can imagine a young person discovering that an intimate image of them is being shared. We can imagine their fear and a parent trying to find a way to deal with the issue. In those moments, time matters. The bill would also address risks from artificial intelligence and, specifically, chatbots. Regulated chatbot services would have to take steps to reduce harmful behaviour and direct users toward crisis support in certain serious situations. Now, some parents will say, “I know my child. I know what’s best. I should decide.” I respect that view. Parents know their children in ways that governments never will, but parents do not design the systems that decide which video appears next to a video that they approved. They cannot control how quickly an image can spread or check every account that comes into contact with their child. In this environment, how much can a family truly manage? We can think of a parent who is working shift work, a caregiver who has several children, a grandparent who knows little about the app. Online safety should not depend entirely on a family’s spare time or technical knowledge. We already accept that children need different rules as they grow. We set minimum driving ages, require safety features in vehicles and teach young drivers how to use the road. While social media certainly is different from driving, the principle is useful. Education, family guidance and safety standards can work together. Just as there are underage drivers, there will also be some who will try to get around the rules. That is why the bill would require covered platforms to use effective age checks with oversight from the digital safety commission. Companies that fail to meet their duties could face corrective orders and substantial financial penalties. A measure does not have to prevent every incident to serve a purpose. Seat belts are an excellent example of that. They do not, unfortunately, prevent every injury. We still require them because reducing harm matters. The test should be clear. Do these measures work, and are they proportionate to the risks? Some key questions also need to be answered. How can age be verified without compromising privacy? Who will have access to the information collected? How long will it be kept? Those are all great questions. The bill provides for safeguards regarding the information used during the age verification process, including its protection and destruction once the verification is complete. It also restricts the collection and use for the purposes of the verification. Protecting children also means protecting their personal information. The two go hand in hand. It is important to note that Canadians want us to act. In a March 2026 Angus Reid poll of 4,000 people, 75% of respondents supported a ban on social media for those under the age of 16. People in Nipissing—Timiskaming are also calling on us to better protect children online. There are certainly things that should give us pause. Certain details will be difficult to sort out, but doing nothing also has consequences. For a child being bullied tonight, the harm is already happening. For a family trying to stop an intimate image from spreading, the need is immediate. We cannot promise a world without risk, but we can take reasonable steps to make it safer. As Parliament studies this bill, young people themselves must have a voice. I encourage young people from Nipissing—Timiskaming to contact my office and tell us what helps them online, what concerns them and what would make their experience safer. We need to hear from them. I conclude by saying that, ultimately, whether we are young, old, parents or young people, we all share a responsibility to help ensure that all children are prepared for the world they are entering. We have a responsibility to ensure that it is a world that is safe for them. Children deserve a safe world.”

In response to a question from Sébastien Lemire

“I support this bill. We consulted people across the country, with over 26,000 responses and 78 meetings. This bill moves Canada in the right direction and will help these projects get built.”

“Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my neighbour, and I genuinely appreciate him as a neighbour. He is a wonderful MP. That is a good question. However, we must remember that the bill is based on more than 26,000 responses and 78 consultation sessions that took place this summer. These consultations were important and showed us how to move forward with all the projects he mentioned. For me, the fundamental question this evening is simple: Does this bill move Canada in the right direction, and does it enable us to carry out the projects my colleague mentioned? The answer is yes.”

• 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 Dan Albas

“I support this bill because it speeds up project decisions to just one year. We can look at the small details later. It is good for our country and for transportation, so we should move forward.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. Maybe the other questions that come forward will build on it to some extent. We can certainly drill down into the weeds, but for me, it is about looking at the overall picture. This is what the bill is about: one project, one decision, one year, moving forward. If it is good for our country, let us move forward. Tonight I explained why I support that direction, and that includes transportation. There will be other opportunities in Parliament to examine further details.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 48 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →

“I support this bill. It speeds up approval times for major projects so we can build infrastructure faster. A stronger economy pays for important services like day care, housing, and senior care, while protecting workers and the environment.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act, and to explain why to the residents of Nipissing—Timiskaming. Canadians elected this government to protect what matters to them while defending and growing our economy. For me, those responsibilities belong together. I want children to have affordable day care and healthy meals at schools, families to find homes they can afford, and seniors to receive the benefits and services they depend on. Canada must also have the means to defend our sovereignty, protect our freedom and contribute to peace, all while leaving the next generation a strong financial future. That takes a strong economy with good jobs, growing businesses and revenues to sustain our commitments. Day care, housing and retirement security may seem far removed from a railway, a pipeline or a port, but they are connected. The prosperity we help create today pays for the promises we intend to keep in the future. As a proud Canadian, I like to believe that Canada is among the world’s best in so many categories, yet research confirms that we have room to improve when it comes to how quickly we build infrastructure. Certainly, we have long distances, a scattered population and harsh weather to contend with here in Canada, and in northern Ontario, we know all three. Those are the realities that push us to build smarter. Furthermore, we can learn from other democracies and examine overlapping approvals, repeated reviews and unclear responsibilities that have made it harder and slower to get projects built. Business owners planning a project should know who makes the decision, what information is needed and when to expect an answer. When departments need the same information, they should speak to one another. Canadians have mastered the group chat. Governments should be able to manage one too. As the Prime Minister has said, “high standards do not require slow decisions.” Every unnecessary delay holds back a job, a business expansion or infrastructure that a community needs. Bill C-39 would tackle all of these challenges. The first part of the bill, “Build Canada Now”, would make federal reviews more coordinated and predictable: one project, one decision, one year. The proposed one-year timeline would begin once a proponent provides all the information required for federal reviews and decisions: a good application and a thorough assessment that works. Once the information is there, government should have a clear responsibility to reach a decision, so the bill would put a federal assessor in charge of coordinating reviews and bring decisions and permits together where the legislation allows. Our Prime Minister has explained that it is about moving from sequential to parallel decision-making. Through all of that, environmental protection must remain central. In Nipissing—Timiskaming, our lakes, forests and waterways support jobs, recreation and our quality of life. We take our lakes seriously, and protecting them is important. Better planning can help us eliminate environmental impacts earlier and decide where projects belong and what conditions they must meet. Indigenous rights and participation deserve absolutely the same care. The bill’s proposed Crown consultation hub would help coordinate federal consultation. Indigenous partners must be involved early, with the resources to assess proposals, raise concerns and help shape decisions. This would include opportunities for indigenous jobs, businesses and ownership. Trust takes time and work. Government must organize itself to help build it. The second part of the bill, “Keep Canada Moving”, matters greatly to northern Ontario. Our manufacturers, farmers, forestry operations and mining businesses need dependable transportation. An excellent product still has to reach the customer. Unreliable highways, limited rail capacity, inadequate air carrier networks and crowded ports mean delays and higher costs. Canada must plan the whole journey from where a product is made to where it is sold. That is why I support the proposed national trade corridor framework and the authority to establish a national trade corridors council. For northern Ontario, this would be an opportunity to bring railways, highways, connections, air service, access to ports and community needs into one plan. It would mean working with the Province of Ontario, indigenous partners and municipalities toward safer, more dependable connections along highways 11 and 17. We would also examine expanding fibre optic infrastructure alongside transportation investments. Businesses need reliable connections for their goods and their information. The truck, and the email announcing its arrival, should both arrive at the same time. The strategy to tell us once and tell us digitally, which is included in the bill, also makes sense. Businesses should submit information once and have it securely shared across government where it is authorized. Filling out the same form five times is certainly an activity, but I think we can all agree that it is not a growth strategy. Less paperwork leaves more time for customers, employees and investment. This work must accompany efforts to reduce trade barriers within Canada. Our roads should connect our regions, and our rules should help Canadians do business across them. The third part, “Canada strong for all”, recognizes the workers who make this economy possible. I support the measures tackling wage theft and the misclassification of employees as contractors, improving safety and helping workers recover wages when an employer becomes insolvent. At airports, preserving union representation and collective agreements when service contracts change would give workers greater stability. The government is also committed to adding 100 health and safety workers and 26 staff at the Canada Industrial Relations Board. Protections need people to enforce them, and complaints need timely answers. The bill would encourage earlier bargaining in difficult labour relationships, provide more time for conciliation and expand access to additional mediation tools. We all know the best agreements are those that workers and employers negotiate themselves. Changes to section 107 deserve careful attention, as the bill would introduce guardrails that encourage early engagement. Before intervening under the proposed framework, the minister would have to consider a special mediator’s report and conclude that a strike or lockout would have a significant adverse national impact. These are serious powers. Their use must be transparent, carefully justified and respectful of freedom of association, including the protected right to strike, and that is what the bill would deliver. These changes require all of us to make an effort. The government must coordinate its work more effectively and be accountable. Businesses must treat their employees fairly and honour their commitments to their communities. We must all ask ourselves whether our current approaches still meet the needs of Canadians. I understand that change can be unsettling. Workers have fought for their protections. Indigenous peoples have fought for the recognition and respect of their rights. Generations of people have worked to protect the environment and build our social programs. These hard-won achievements must guide our future. It is often said that compromise is everything. This may be the most controversial point in my speech, but the meaning is simple. Everyone needs to come one step closer, listen, and seek common ground. We can improve the way we work together while honouring our commitments. That is essentially what Bill C-39 is all about. I support this bill, because a stronger economy helps sustain affordable day care, school meals, housing and security for seniors. The bill would help young people find careers worth staying or coming home for. It would give Canada the means to defend its sovereignty, build a strong economy and build a strong future. Northern Ontario and Nipissing—Timiskaming have much to contribute. Let us measure success in projects completed responsibly, workers coming home safely, businesses reaching new customers and communities gaining opportunities. Let us build this future together.”

In response to a question from Eric Melillo

“I want to know what the member thinks about the national trade corridors council.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would be interested in the member’s views on the national trade corridors council.”

“Like the member, I am from the north. Our government funded highways 11 and 17 in northwestern Ontario, and I want to know his thoughts on those roads.”

“Mr. Speaker, in particular, I am interested in my colleague’s views on highways 11 and 17. I am a northerner, like he is. I would simply like to point out first, to maybe help him remember, that our minister from Thunder Bay announced funding for highways in the north, in northwestern Ontario. Certainly that history is there. More specifically tonight, I am interested in your views, because I believe there is—”

“I want the member to explain what helped the Confederation Bridge get built on time and on budget.”

“Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed hearing the member describe the Confederation Bridge project. I am wondering if he could touch upon a few of the elements that delivered that project on time and on budget.”

In response to a question from Arnold Viersen

“Some members want this fuel tax relief to be permanent. But the economy is uncertain, and we cannot predict what will happen in six months. I want the member to explain how we can make long-term plans with so much uncertainty.”

“Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague’s comments related to honey. In my own family, we do, as a hobby, produce honey and maple syrup so his comments were very relevant to me. I do appreciate the need for labelling to say that things come from Canada, so well said. Tonight we heard many comments from our colleagues across the aisle about the fact that it would be great if the relief were more permanent or if it could be extended. For me, the question is around the uncertainty. We did not know six months ago where we would be today and we do not know where we will be in six months. I would like to hear the member’s comments about how we can fix things in the longer term when there is so much uncertainty.”

In response to a question from Tamara Kronis

“This tax cut cannot last forever because it has already cost the government 5.3 billion dollars.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is a fair question. Certainly, I can appreciate that some would say it is not enough and some would say it is too much. Basically, as I have pointed out, it cost our government $5.3 billion. I think there may be an answer in that as well.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 48 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 44 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault

“We must listen to the people we represent. Our government is meeting their needs with many programs to help with the cost of living.”

“Mr. Speaker, I really appreciate my colleague’s question. I know how hard he works in his riding. It is indeed very important to listen to our constituents. That is why I am very pleased to see that our government is meeting his constituents’ needs. This evening, several of my colleagues have talked about our measures. A suite of measures has been implemented to help address the cost-of-living issue for Canadians.”

In response to a question from William Stevenson

“Saving five dollars on a tank of gas may seem small, but it adds up quickly for truckers and the whole economy. Cutting this fuel tax costs the government 5.3 billion dollars, so we must balance our spending carefully. We are doing this again because the war in the Middle East is still driving up prices, and we will keep watching the situation.”

“Mr. Speaker, certainly, the savings is about five dollars on a typical 50-litre fill-up. However, savings add up quickly when we recognize that this impacts truckers and so many different types of vehicles that travel on the road. It helps to support our economy. In other words, the impact extends beyond the pump. It is broader. For our government, and for all of us in the House of Commons, it is important. This particular relief is costing our government $5.3 billion if we take what was originally provided earlier in the year with this additional relief. It is a considerable amount. As I pointed out, as we look at balancing so many elements in our economy, in our society and in our country, it is important that we ensure we have the fiscal capacity to balance all of these different measures. A final point is that this is the second time our country is acting, because we recognize that the conflict in the Middle East is continuing. We will all work together and continue to have an eye on this particular situation.”

“I want the House to pass this bill. It pauses the federal fuel tax to lower the price of gas and diesel. People in rural and northern communities have to drive long distances, and this will help them and their local businesses save money.”

“Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill C-38, the Canadian fuel affordability act. This legislation is a focused and practical response to very a real pressure facing Canadian families and businesses: the sharp increase in fuel costs caused by global conflict and disruptions in international energy markets. Canadians did not create these circumstances, but they are paying the price. Bill C-38 would extend the full suspension of the federal fuel excise tax introduced earlier this year until January 31, 2027. It would then restore the tax at half its regular rate for February and March, before returning to the regular rate on April 1. In the case of gasoline, the full suspension represents a savings of 10¢ per litre, compared to four cents per litre for diesel and aviation fuel and 10¢ per litre for unleaded aviation gasoline. These savings are significant across Canada, but they are particularly significant in rural and northern communities, including the one I represent, the riding of Nipissing—Timiskaming. In my riding, driving is not a choice. It is often the only realistic way to get to work, attend a medical appointment or bring a child to a hockey practice. Residents from Mattawa to Englehart and throughout our many rural communities regularly travel significant distances to obtain services that residents in large urban centres may find only a few blocks away. For many of our residents, there is no subway, commuter train or bus waiting around the corner. Distances do not become shorter when fuel prices rise, and medical appointments cannot be postponed until prices fall. That is why any national affordability policy must understand the realities of rural and northern Canada, and Bill C-38 does exactly that. Fuel costs also affect the businesses and workers sustaining our regional economy. In the little clay belt, one of northern Ontario’s most productive agricultural regions, our farmers use diesel to operate tractors and other machinery to transport livestock and deliver food to market. In a region with a shorter growing season, that work must often be completed within a very narrow window. A farmer cannot simply park the tractor because diesel has become more expensive. Fuel is not a discretionary expense in agriculture. It is part of the cost of producing the food Canadians depend on. The same is true in forestry. Harvesting equipment requires fuel. Trucks travel into the forest, carry logs to mills and move finished products to customers. At a time when northern Ontario’s forestry sector is already facing tariffs, market uncertainty and difficult operating conditions, reducing diesel costs provides meaningful relief to workers and businesses. The benefit extends well beyond into manufacturing as well. Gincor Werx is a company in Mattawa that manufactures specialty trucks. Throughout the riding of Nipissing—Timiskaming, there are manufacturing companies and mining industry suppliers shipping equipment and parts to northern Ontario, Quebec, and other parts of Canada. These products do not transport themselves. A drop in diesel prices has ripple effects well beyond gas stations. It helps the truck driver transporting food products north, the construction company hauling aggregate and building materials, the logging contractor transporting equipment, and the courier service delivering supplies to a small business. Ultimately, a drop in diesel prices helps reduce costs throughout the entire supply chain. Bill C-38 would also extend relief for aviation fuel, and that is especially important in northern Ontario, where aviation is not simply about holidays and business travel. It connects rural and remote communities and supports medical transportation, emergency response, firefighting, search and rescue, workforce movement and the delivery of essential services. No single measure will solve every affordability challenge. Bill C-38 is not presented as a permanent answer to global energy volatility. It provides immediate, time-limited relief in response to an extraordinary external pressure, full stop. Some will argue that this bill does not go far enough and that the excise tax should be abolished permanently. I would respond that being a responsible government means addressing the immediate pressure while preserving the fiscal capacity required to fund health care, infrastructure, national defence and other essential services that are important to all of us in this chamber. Bill C-38 takes a measured approach, with full relief through January, followed by a two-month transition at half the regular rate. We can provide immediate affordability relief without abandoning the longer-term work of making our economy more competitive. Long-term ambition and immediate affordability are not competing objectives. A responsible government must be able to advance both at the same time, and that broader approach is reflected in our government’s current legislative agenda. Alongside Bill C-38, the government has introduced Bill C-39, the building Canada strong act. That legislation is intended to bring greater speed, certainty and predictability to federal project reviews, to strengthen trade corridors and supply chains, and to support the workers who are building our next generation of Canadian infrastructure. We saw the evidence of Canada’s economic potential at last week’s Canada investment summit in Toronto, which resulted in nearly $500 billion in investment commitments and financing for Canadian infrastructure, businesses and our strategic industries. We are also seeing progress in Canada’s economic performance. Today, our Minister of Finance spoke to us about results. According to the OECD, Canada’s real GDP grew by 0.8% in the second quarter, and that is the strongest quarterly growth among G7 countries. That is important. By comparison, the economies of the United States and the United Kingdom grew by 0.4%, Japan’s by 0.3%, and those of France, Germany and Italy by 0.2%. I recognize, however, that these figures do not mean that every household feels economically secure. Economic growth does not erase the pressure on Canadians, including the residents in my riding of Nipissing—Timiskaming. It does not erase the pressure that they face when buying groceries, homes or fuel, but these figures demonstrate that Canada has important strengths on which to build. Across the G7 and G20, countries are confronting higher costs arising from war, tariffs, trade disruptions and volatility in global energy markets. It is happening in other countries. What distinguishes governments is how they respond. Our response is to provide immediate relief. That is what we are doing in Canada: protecting workers and businesses, attracting investment, diversifying our trade and accelerating the projects that will make Canada more productive and resilient while creating good-paying jobs. This is something we all want in this chamber. Bill C-38 would put money back into the pockets of Canadians. It would support the businesses that move our economy and recognizes that the transportation realities of rural and northern communities are important. For those reasons, I want to tell the citizens of Nipissing—Timiskaming watching this presentation that I will be supporting Bill C-38, as it is so important to our riding.”