Rosemarie Falk

“Canada lost 110,000 jobs in two months, and young Canadians are hurting the most. Will the government change its policies so young people can find work?”

“Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada reported that Canada lost 68,300 jobs in September, amounting to 110,000 jobs lost in just two months. Young Canadians are the ones bearing the brunt of these losses. For a young Canadian trying to land their first job, build experience and save for a home, these are not just statistics. They represent lost opportunities and a delayed future. Will the Liberals reverse course on their policies that are holding young Canadians back?”

In response to a question from Arnold Viersen

“I want the House to pass this bill and send it to committee. We have known for over ten years that online pornography harms children and warps how they view sex and relationships.”

“Mr. Speaker, it has been a very long time. It has been over 10 years that we have known this is an issue. Not long ago, there was an article in The Globe and Mail, which I referred to in my remarks, about sexual strangulation derailing a generation of girls. This is how pornography is affecting children, the next generation. It is a distorted version of what relationships and sex are. It is time this legislation passes so that we are able to move forward and take it to committee.”

In response to a question from Andréanne Larouche

“I want to send this bill to a committee for more study. It protects people's private information, and Canada's Privacy Commissioner supports it.”

“Mr. Speaker, we do sit together on HUMA, and I very much appreciate working with the member. We know the Privacy Commissioner has endorsed this bill. There are specific provisions in section 12(2) that would ensure that whatever method is chosen needs to be highly effective, be operated by a third party organization, and maintain user privacy and protect personal information. The fact that the Privacy Commissioner has endorsed this bill says leaps and bounds, because his job is to ensure that the privacy of Canadians is respected. For sure, I think this would be great to go to committee, where we can have a deeper dive on those conversations regarding Bill S-209.”

• 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 Kevin Lamoureux

“Another bill deals with social media and chatbots, but it does not cover online porn companies. This bill is needed to close that gap and stop those companies.”

“Mr. Speaker, we need to recognize what Bill C-34 is encapsulating. Bill C-34 specifically applies to regulated social media services and regulated chatbot services, so that is user-generated content. What Bill S-209 is targeting is pornographic content from online porn companies. They are two different things. I believe there is a hole in Bill C-34 where this is not covered. Online porn companies are not covered in Bill C-34. Bill S-209 is a targeted piece of legislation that will close that hole.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 47 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I want the House to pass this bill to committee. It requires commercial porn websites to check that users are adults before letting them in. Children often see this material by accident, which harms their development and relationships. Parents cannot catch every click, so companies that make money from porn should help keep children off their sites. The bill protects user privacy by requiring the age checks to be done safely by third parties who must delete the data.”

“moved that Bill S-209, An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to pornographic material, be read the second time and referred to a committee. She said: Madam Speaker, we know that the Internet gives us access to almost anything. With just a few clicks, we can watch a movie, learn a new skill on YouTube, find a new recipe, research any topic or talk to a friend down the street or even on the other side of the world. Within my own lifetime, the Internet has gone from something new to something that is fully integrated into our everyday lives. The Internet is without a doubt a big part of everyday life for every generation, including our children. They use it to do their homework. They play games. They watch videos. They connect with their friends. However, the Internet also gives children access to things that they are not ready to see, understand or even process. One thing that is readily available to kids is pornography. Research shows that children can be exposed to pornography online without ever even intending to look for it. They can come across it in an unintended search result. They can click on the wrong link. It can be shared by another child, or it can appear through an advertisement. Once a child sees it, we cannot assume they understand what they are seeing. They do not have the experience or maturity to understand what they are looking at, or what it means for a healthy relationship. Parents may not even know that this has happened. The Canadian Centre for Child Protection says children as young as eight and nine can easily come across sexually graphic material online. An Alberta study found that one-third of adolescents in this study had first been exposed to pornography by the age of 10. Other research has reported exposure at even younger ages, including children as young as five. Let us just sit with that for a moment and think about that. At five years old, a child is just beginning school. They are learning to read. They are learning how to make friends. They are learning about the world around them. They should not be exposed to pornography, and they certainly do not have the capacity to understand it. Children are being exposed to pornography online, sometimes at a very young age. The graphic and often violent content is not appropriate for a child. Their brains are still developing, and they are learning how to understand relationships, emotions, boundaries and the world around them. When a child is exposed to pornography, they do not have the maturity to understand what they are seeing. They may start to believe that what they are watching is healthy, and it can shape their ideas about sex, relationships and how people should treat one another. There is another concern. What might start as accidental exposure or curiosity can become a habit. A child may return to that content again and again. Over time, repeated use can become compulsive, and for some young people it can develop into an addiction. There is certainly evidence that compulsive consumption is a widespread and growing public health issue. One Canadian survey examined students from grade 7 to 11. Among the grade 8 students surveyed, 88% of boys and 72% of girls reported seeing sexually explicit content, and 35% of boys said they had seen pornography too many times to count. To be clear, these are children. They are still developing their understanding of sex, relationships and what is healthy, yet some are already being exposed to pornography on a regular basis. This is not something we should ignore, because that repeated exposure is rewiring the brains of the kids who are consuming it. Over time, repeated exposure can shape what a young person comes to see as healthy. It can shape their expectations about sex and relationships, and those ideas do not simply disappear once a child turns 18. What a young person sees while they are still developing can influence how they understand relationships later in life. We can see examples of this in the way that some harmful sexual behaviours have become normalized among young people. A recent article by sex neuroscientist Debra Soh examined the growing normalization of sexual choking among young people. She makes the case that pornography has played a role in making behaviour that was once clearly understood as dangerous seem normal or even expected in some relationships. These harms can affect how young people understand sex, relationships and consent, and the consequences can extend beyond a child who is viewing the content. When harmful behaviours are normalized, there can be victims on the other side of those behaviours. Young women and girls can be affected by expectations placed on them by partners who have learned distorted ideas about sex and relationships. We need to think about the young people who may be pressured to accept behaviour because they have been told it is normal. We also need to think about those who may experience sexual violence or abuse as a result. Protecting children from harmful content is not just about what they see on a screen. It is also about the kinds of relationships and expectations we want them to carry into adulthood, yet there are currently no safeguards in place to make sure children cannot easily access this content online. That is a disservice to our children. Bill S-209 is a response to that lack of a safeguard. I am grateful to Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne for her persistence and dedication in addressing this issue and for her commitment to protecting children online. I share that commitment. To be clear, the bill is very targeted. It would not ban pornography. What it would do is require commercial pornography websites to take responsible steps to make sure their content is not being viewed by children. If a website makes money by providing pornography, it should have a responsibility to help keep that content away from children. Bill S-209 would require these websites to use effective age verification or age estimation measures. In other words, if the content is intended for adults, there should be a reasonable way to make sure that the person accessing it is actually an adult. This is about putting in age restrictions where ones should already exist. We have age restrictions for many things in the real world. One has to be a certain age to buy alcohol. One has to be a certain age to gamble. One has to be a certain age to purchase pornography. We expect businesses to follow these rules. Frankly, we should expect the same online. Children deserve that protection. That is what the bill would do, while also taking into account the privacy of Canadians. It is not a matter of protecting children or protecting privacy. We can and we should do both. Bill S-209 includes safeguards to protect the personal information of Canadians while making sure that children cannot easily access pornography. The bill would put clear requirements in place for any age verification or age estimation method that is prescribed. The method must be highly effective. It must be operated by an independent third party. It must protect the privacy of users and their personal information. It can only collect and use information that is necessary to verify or estimate a person’s age. Once the process is complete, that information must be destroyed. The goal is to confirm that someone is old enough to access adult content. It is not to create a record of what Canadians are looking at online. It is certainly worth noting that Canada’s Privacy Commissioner, Philippe Dufresne, has expressed support for Bill S-209 and welcomed the privacy protections included in the legislation. When we are talking about children, there is another important part of this conversation that we cannot overlook, and that is parents. Parents have the primary responsibility for raising their children. They teach their children right from wrong. They set boundaries. They talk to their children about what is appropriate and what is not appropriate. Parents do everything they can to keep their children safe. This legislation in no way undermines the authority of parents. It does not replace the role of parents. It does not tell parents how to raise their children. Instead, it gives parents another tool to help protect their children online, because the reality is that no matter how hard parents try, they cannot monitor everything their children see online. They cannot be there for every search, every click, every message and every video. Parents can use parental controls and other safeguards on their children’s devices, and those tools can certainly help, but they cannot protect every child from coming across inappropriate content. That is where this legislation can help. It would add another layer of protection. It would put responsibility on the companies that profit from providing pornography to make sure that children cannot easily access it. Parents should not have to carry that responsibility alone. They are already doing everything they can. This bill would simply give them another tool to help keep their children safe online. When I was home in my riding over the summer, I spoke with many parents about this issue. The message I heard was very clear: Parents want to protect their children. They know they cannot monitor everything their children do online, and they see this legislation as a reasonable step that can help them do that. It is widely understood that early exposure to pornography is harmful to children. After decades of widespread access to online pornography, we have research showing the negative impact that early and repeated exposure can have on young people, and we as legislators have a responsibility to act on what we know. That means putting reasonable safeguards in place, supporting parents and making sure commercial pornography companies have effective age restrictions in place to keep their content away from children. Bill S-209 would do exactly that. It would create a barrier between children and pornography that does not currently exist. It would help prevent unintended exposure and make it more difficult for children to access this content. It would give parents another tool while recognizing that parents cannot do this alone, and it would do so while respecting the privacy of Canadians. This bill would not ban pornography. It would not replace parents. It would simply recognize that protecting children online is a shared responsibility. Children deserve reasonable safeguards and guardrails to protect them from online pornography. Parents deserve the tools to help protect them, and Canadians deserve privacy protections. Bill S-209 would bring these priorities together. I hope that all members of this House recognize the urgency of this issue and support the protections that our children deserve.”

“A new report says half of working Canadians have no money left to save. Liberal taxes and spending are driving up living costs. The Conservative plan would save each family nearly $10,000. Will the government adopt our plan?”

“Mr. Speaker, a survey released yesterday by the National Payroll Institute found that half of employed Canadians are now spending all or more of their take-home pay, leaving nothing for savings. Liberal taxes and wasteful government spending are only making things more expensive for Canadians. Our Conservative plan will save Canadians money. We have identified nearly $10,000 in savings for every Canadian family. Will the Liberals adopt our Conservative economic action plan so Canadians can keep more of their money and afford to live again?”

“Canadians are struggling to afford everyday life, while the government wastes billions of dollars. The Conservative plan would cut over $150 billion in waste and save families nearly $10,000 each. I want the government to adopt our plan.”

“Mr. Speaker, Canadians are paying more for everything. Glen has shared with me that he is working three jobs just to stay afloat, and Leonard is struggling to afford to travel to see his grandchildren. These are real Canadians who are being forced to make difficult decisions just to get by. While families are cutting back, these Liberals keep spending billions on wasteful bureaucracy, consultants and corporate welfare. Our Conservative economic plan has identified over $150 billion in wasteful spending and nearly $10,000 in savings per family. Will the Liberals adopt our plan?”

• Echo ×5

  A repeated line

  “Will the Liberals adopt our plan?”

  Said 5 times by 4 members since September 22.

  Every time it was said →

In response to a question from Mario Beaulieu

“The government should withdraw this bill. It hurts Canadians' religious freedom and freedom of speech.”

“Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, we can kill this bill. This bill can be withdrawn. The government can do that and bring forward legislation that is uniting to Canadians, that immediately addresses the concerns that I mentioned in my speech. I will say that the government cannot be trusted. We know that a minister of the Crown said there are parts of scripture that should be criminalized. That is the intent and goal of this. We cannot just take what Liberals say at face value. In my speech, I gave multiple examples of where the government is limiting Canadians’ religious freedom and freedom of expression.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 94 of 100

  Of this reply, 91% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

In response to a question from Ryan Turnbull

“The government did not talk to religious groups, legal experts, or ordinary Canadians before writing this bill. Many faith groups have concerns about it. Our laws already protect places of worship and ban intimidation.”

“Mr. Speaker, there was lack of consultation with this bill. We know there was lack of consultation when it came to religious organizations, civil liberty groups, legal experts and faith communities across Canada, and I would say individual Canadians as well. I will also note that stakeholders have publicly raised concerns about this, many of them, including the Christian Legal Fellowship, the Canadian Council of Imams, the National Council of Canadian Muslims, ARPA Canada and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada. There have been many organizations, not just one particular faith group, that have brought forward the concerns of not being consulted or seeing issues with the bill. I will also note, though, that there are sections within the Criminal Code that address crimes against places of worship and obstruction. That would be section 176, for example. Acts of intimidation are in section 423.1. I could go on and on.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 44 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“I do not want this bill to pass. It removes a legal defence that protects people who express their religious beliefs in good faith. We must stop hate crimes, but this bill threatens religious freedom.”

“Mr. Speaker, off the top, I will note that I will be splitting my time with the member for London—Fanshawe. Canadians of faith must be free to practise their beliefs without fear of intimidation, violence or persecution. That freedom is fundamental. It was secured by the generations that came before us, and it has been defended time and again. It remains our responsibility to protect and safeguard it for generations to come. There is no doubt that we are seeing a troubling rise in hate crimes across our country: Christian churches have been burned and vandalized, synagogues have been shot at and firebombed, mosques have been targeted and temples have been attacked. These are not just acts of vandalism; they target entire faith communities, undermine the sense of belonging and safety that these places provide and erode the fundamental freedom of Canadians to gather, worship and live out their beliefs in peace. This trend is serious. It demands attention. These crimes must be met with real consequences. Those who commit them must be prosecuted. The law must be enforced, and the government must show leadership. Threatening the religious freedom and expression of the very people being targeted is not the solution. That remains the serious concern with Bill C‑9. It would not target just hate. Even as amended, Bill C‑9 would still risk undermining the very religious freedom and freedom of expression that it should be strengthening. While the amended bill would add to the list of prohibited hate symbols, it would not undo the proposed removal of the religious defence in the Criminal Code. This defence has long been part of Canadian law. It was introduced when Parliament created our modern hate propaganda laws. At the time, Parliament made a deliberate choice to create strong laws to combat hate, but also to include clear safeguards. Those safeguards include defences for truth, for statements made in the public interest, for lack of intent and for good‑faith religious expression. The purpose was simple: to ensure that while we prohibit hate, we do not criminalize belief; that Canadians can speak out about their faith; and that religious texts can be discussed, taught and debated without fear. Let me be clear: The defence has never protected hate speech or calls to violence. If somebody promotes hatred or incites violence, that is already illegal, and it has always been illegal. The religious defence does not change that. It simply ensures that good-faith expression of religious belief is not swept into the Criminal Code. That balance has worked for decades. It is part of what has made our laws constitutional. In fact, the Supreme Court has recognized this protection as essential to keeping Canada’s hate speech laws constitutional. It is part of what has protected both freedom of expression and freedom of religion in this country. This bill, in its current form, would remove that safeguard, and it would do so not after years of study, a major review of the Criminal Code or broad consultation with Canadians. In fact, it was not even in the government’s original bill, but was added later without evidence to support it. This would be a significant change to Canadian criminal law, and changes like this are rare. When Parliament has changed or removed legal defences in the past, it is done so carefully, after serious study, hearing from experts and consulting with Canadians. That did not happen here. Witnesses did not call for the change, nor did religious communities ask for this, yet the Liberals are pushing it through anyway. They could have split the bill and built consensus around those measures, and they would have had broad support. Instead, the Liberals are using procedural tools to limit debate and accelerate the passage of this divisive bill. That should concern every single member of the House, because this would not be a minor, technical change, but the removal of a long‑standing protection that has been part of the balance in our law for over half a century. It would be removed without careful consideration that such a decision demands. Canadians are paying attention, and they are sounding the alarm. I am hearing from my constituents, and I know colleagues in the House are hearing from theirs as well. We do know that more than 200,000 postcards were sent to members in the other place, urging them to reject this change, yet those postcards were withheld and not delivered immediately. Parliament has a responsibility to ensure the voices of Canadians are received and considered. This level of public engagement demonstrates just how deeply Canadians care about protecting their freedoms. Faith leaders are speaking out. Experts are raising concerns. These are not fringe voices. These are thoughtful, engaged Canadians who understand what is at stake. The Liberal government has once again limited debate on this issue. It is shutting down the voices in this place, and it is ignoring the voices of Canadians. The Liberals are asking Canadians to trust them and to trust their intentions, but the Liberal Minister of Canadian Identity and Culture has already suggested that passages from the Bible are clearly hateful. He has said that prosecutors should have the discretion to lay charges in those cases. This is not a hypothetical concern. It is a stated view on the record from a Liberal minister. Canadians are also looking at the government’s record. This is not an isolated case. There is a broader pattern here, a pattern of shutting down debate, dismissing experts and stakeholders, pushing through legislation without proper review and introducing policies that chip away at fundamental freedoms. We saw it with the Canada summer jobs attestation. Canadians were told that if they did not affirm to certain beliefs, they could not access funding. We saw it when the finance committee suggested removing charitable status from churches. That recommendation was an attack on religious freedom and completely dismissed the incredible work faith communities across this country do every single day. We also saw freedom of religion threatened when the Liberals banned public prayer at Remembrance Day ceremonies. Over and over again, when it comes to faith and expression, the government has shown its willingness to draw lines around what Canadians can say and what they can believe. This is why Canadians are uneasy. When a government asks for trust while limiting debate, while dismissing and ignoring legitimate concerns, and while removing long-standing protections, Canadians are justifiably concerned. This is exactly what we are seeing in Bill C-9. What is needed right now is leadership. The growing number of hate crimes must be confronted, but we must also recognize that the rise has happened under the Liberal government’s watch. The Liberal government has failed to show leadership. It has failed to enforce laws that already exist. Many of the measures in this bill are already covered in current law. Actions such as obstructing access to places of worship, acts of intimidation, promoting hatred and inciting violence are all already illegal. Conservatives offered a reasonable path forward with this bill. We offered to split the bill, to pass the parts everyone agrees on right away to protect Canadians and places of worship without delay, but the Liberals refused. They also rejected Conservative efforts to add clear language to the bill that would protect freedom of expression and freedom of religion. Canadians should be free to practise their religion and express their beliefs without fear, and that includes being free from overreach by the Liberal government. We must not criminalize peaceful expression. We must not open the door to the persecution of faith. It is time for the government to reconsider. This bill should be completely withdrawn. Rather than rushing this divisive legislation through the House, the minister needs to bring forward legislation that combats hate while fully protecting religious freedom and freedom of expression. It is time to listen to Canadians, and it is time for these Liberals to stop chipping away at the freedoms that define us as Canadians.”

• Echo ×3

  A repeated line

  “That should concern every single member of the House.”

  Said 3 times by 3 members since April 27.

  Every time it was said →

“The government is rushing this hate crimes bill through and cutting off debate. The bill divides Canadians, and the minister even suggested religious texts could be seen as hateful. The government should drop this bill and bring back one that unites people.”

“Mr. Speaker, we know that the Minister of Heritage had suggested that passages of religious scripture could be viewed as hateful. We know that this government, which the member is a part of, has moved to limit debate once again, specifically on Bill C-9, since that is what we are debating, but it is happening on a lot of things. I am wondering why the member thinks that his government should continue to ram this bill through before the end of the session instead of killing the bill and coming back with something that is not so divisive and that actually can unite Canadians.”

“The Prime Minister spent almost one million dollars on airplane food while millions of Canadians need food banks. Liberal spending and rules are driving up costs. I want the Prime Minister to change these policies so people can afford to live.”

“Mr. Speaker, in just 14 trips, the Prime Minister spent nearly $1 million on inflight catering at taxpayers’ expense. Meanwhile, two in five Canadians struggle to put food on the table and a record 2.2 million Canadians rely on the food bank in a single month. Liberal inflationary spending, red tape and antidevelopment policies are driving up costs and weakening our economy. It is always Canadians who are left paying for Liberal waste. Will the Prime Minister reverse his costly policies that caused this crisis, so Canadians can afford to live again?”

• Echo ×13

  A repeated line

  “When will the Liberal Prime Minister end his costly budgeting so Canadians can afford to live?”

  Said 13 times by 12 members since April 28.

  Every time it was said →