Bill S-210

Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Act

An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material

This enactment makes it an offence for organizations to make sexually explicit material available to young persons on the Internet. It also enables a designated enforcement authority to take steps to prevent sexually explicit material from being made available to young persons on the Internet in Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 108 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

Pursuant to the order of reference referred to the committee on Wednesday, December 13, 2023, the committee is resuming its study of Bill S-210, an act to restrict young persons' online access to sexually explicit material.

Before we begin, I would like to ask all members and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidance to prevent audio feedback incidents.

Please take note of the following preventative measures in place to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters. Only use a black approved earpiece. The former grey earpieces must no longer be used. Keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you are not using your earpiece, place it face down on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose.

Thank you all for your consideration.

Department of Justice—Main Estimates, 2024-25

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Chair, the government is completely ignoring Bill S‑210. Bill C‑63 is a huge bill that has received some criticism. It is likely to take a long time to study.

However, we think the proposal to set up a digital safety commission is a good idea that should be implemented quickly. That is why we are proposing that the bill be split, quite simply, so that we can take the time to properly study all harmful content while still setting up the digital safety commission quickly. I understand that the proposal has not been accepted, but I still think it is a good idea.

The topic of harmful content brings me to hate speech. Will the minister commit to abolishing the Criminal Code exemption that allows hate speech in the name of religion? In fact, that would be a great addition to his Bill C‑63.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Chair, I politely beg to differ. I feel that Bill C‑63 is extremely important, but it is not exactly the same thing. Yes, it contains elements that make it possible to regulate or, at least, be warned before consuming certain types of content, but there is nothing that really makes it possible to verify the consumer's age.

I would therefore advise the government to support a bill like Bill S‑210. Obviously, it is not easy to implement this type of safeguard, and other countries are currently looking at that. However, it is an extremely important bill.

To return to Bill C‑63, would the minister agree that the first part of the bill could be split from the rest so that the digital security commission could be created as quickly as possible? That would enable us to protect female victims of intimate content communicated without consent, including deepfakes.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Chair, I think that the minister is well aware that those are two completely different missions. Both are commendable.

Bill C‑63 has its good points, but Bill S‑210 really seeks to check the age of pornography users to limit young people's access to it. The Liberal Party seems to disagree with this bill, and yet other countries, like Germany, France and the United Kingdom, as well as some states in the U.S. are looking into this way of verifying the age of users.

Why does Canada not want to move forward in this way to limit the access of children under the age of 18 to pornography?

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Chair, that is a great question, but I believe that the senator's bill, Bill S‑210, addresses only one aspect of our broader bill, C‑63.

Protecting children from pornography and sexual predators is a priority for both me and the senator. However, we have different ways of tackling the problem. We are dealing with a much bigger and broader problem in our own Bill C-63. We are also different when it comes to the mandates and the modus operandi that the senator proposes to use.

We are concerned about how to verify someone's age. Does it have to be a piece of government-issued ID? Will this cause other problems or lead to the possibility of other crimes, such as financial fraud, at the international level?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Chair, I would point out to the minister that he does not want to give Quebec an exemption from the Criminal Code, but he is giving one to British Columbia. In my view, this is something that is possible for the people in this situation in Quebec.

Now, I would like to hear his comments on all the issues related to child pornography, children's access to pornography and the sharing of non-consensual content. To my eyes, the purpose of Bill S‑210, which was introduced by Senator Julie Miville‑Dechêne and which seeks to prevent minors from accessing pornography, is completely different from the purpose of Bill C‑63, which the minister introduced and which seeks to protect the public from harmful content streamed on social media, such as intimate content communicated without consent and content that sexually victimizes a child.

Does he agree with me that these two bills have completely different purposes?

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

On that point, I would ask that you look for additional resources for future meetings, given that the Conservatives want to continue filibustering to avoid getting to Bill S-210. We're prepared to let them speak and filibuster as long as it takes, because we want to actually get down to work on the business of this committee.

[Chris Bittle, Liberal, St. Catharines, ON]

It's unfortunate that motion failed, since Mr. Kurek wanted to hear from me. I'm hoping Mr. Viersen can turn his remarks back to S-210 and, again, as a champion for protecting children, say why he's—

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

There aren't many of us in the meeting room, but I must say that the microphones are working quite well, and we don't even need to put in our earpieces because we can hear Mr. Caputo very well. I don't think he needs to yell to make his speech. He could lower the tone, which would be good for everyone.

He could also refrain from repeating the same things five or six times, because we're starting to get the picture.

Having said that, I have some questions for him.

What is the Conservative Party's position on Bill S‑210?

Is he filibustering today because he doesn't want to study this bill?

In answering my questions, he could say something other than what he's talking about now.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

I had hoped that the intervening moments would provide an opportunity for clarification of conscience among some of my colleagues, but sadly that has not occurred. This is a truly bizarre display.

I want to remind you that this study on car theft was proposed by the Bloc Québécois. However, today, the Bloc Québécois has decided to vote against giving the ministers the opportunity to answer questions on this subject. It's very odd.

The NDP, Liberals and Bloc are, allegedly, concerned about this issue, yet we have proposed multiple times that we adjourn debate on this other matter to allow the ministers to speak. I just proposed a motion that we proceed to hearing from the ministers, yet we have this Liberal-Bloc-NDP tactic of blocking ministers from presenting. This is consistent with the evident desire of Liberals to prevent any prospective leadership candidates from being heard at committee.

Mr. LeBlanc, as well as Mr. Rodriguez, should be held accountable on their files. That said, Ms. O'Connell was suspiciously given the floor at the beginning of the meeting, and she's reinforced the point. That was suspicious.

I do welcome the sort of [Inaudible—Editor] chorus reinforcement of my messages today.

Suspiciously, she was given the floor by the chair, and when she was given the floor, she moved a motion to shift to a different item, an item that was not on the agenda and an item involving the subcommittee's report.

Here we are, and I have tried, through a number of dilatory motions, to give the committee the opportunity to hear from the ministers, but those proposals have been blocked by the cover-up coalition. I hope other colleagues will see reason here and see the outcome. I hope they realize that it is better to give the ministers an opportunity to present and give us an opportunity to ask them questions.

On the subcommittee report, we are debating amendments that we proposed to the seventh report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. The amendments we proposed are to a number of different sections. We have not proposed any changes to sections of the subcommittee report that deal with Bill S-210, so any suggestions to the contrary are verifiably false. These amendments are public. These amendments do not, in any way, impact the sections that deal with the study of Bill S-210. They deal with other matters.

The first change is in section three of the subcommittee report. The existing section proposed that the ministers appear together. It actually deals with the appearance of ministers. It proposes that ministers appear together for the first hour of a meeting. We proposed, instead, that it be amended to say that the ministers appear separately for one hour each on the study of auto theft.

This amendment is consistent with a proposal made publicly yesterday, as well, highlighting and reinforcing our belief. If each minister has an hour of time available, it makes more sense that they appear individually for an hour, so that they can each individually be asked questions about their own individual activities and their own work on their own portfolio.

Liberals are clearly doing everything they can to minimize ministerial accountability, first, by saying that the ministers would appear together all at once, and now, by moving this motion by Ms. O'Connell to prevent ministers from testifying. They are repeatedly lining up with their coalition partners to prevent us from hearing the ministers.

Our proposal as part of the amendment to the subcommittee report was, frankly, quite generous in terms of ministerial appearances. We did not propose that they each appear for two hours on auto theft. We proposed, rather, that they appear for one hour each. In the context in which the ministers have said they have an hour available to them, it would have been reasonable for them to appear separately for an hour each. That's what we proposed.

I also proposed that we invite the Minister of Public Safety to appear for one hour to answer questions on ArriveCAN. I can tell from his expression that Mr. LeBlanc is very interested in addressing the arrive scam scandal. We have been able to have a number of different witnesses, public servants and deputy ministers, come repeatedly to answer important questions on the arrive scam scandal, but we have had ministers relatively reluctant to appear, although I will say that one of Mr. LeBlanc's fellow contenders in the upcoming Liberal leadership race, Minister Anand, did appear and answered one hour's worth of questions at the public accounts committee. Ms. Anand has exceeded her future competitor Mr. LeBlanc in terms of her willingness to appear before committee on the arrive scam scandal.

Of course, the arrive scam scandal is something that happened. It involves procurement and various issues, but, crucially, it involves the CBSA. There seem to be some significant problems there, even in terms of officials pointing the finger at each other and accusing each other of lying. This is why, in our subcommittee report, we proposed that Minister LeBlanc be given the opportunity to answer questions from members of Parliament on the issue of the arrive scam scandal. We've been very generous in our proposal of only one hour.

The committee would, I think, be interested in hearing from Minister LeBlanc on the arrive scam scandal—what he knew when, what he did with that information, whether he thinks it's normal that a two-person company based in a basement somewhere received an overwhelming amount of money from his department, and what he did with that information once he received it. We have a system of ministerial accountability in which ministers should answer questions. Of course, the agenda for today was to have ministers answer questions on auto theft.

Look, there are many issues: the main estimates, of course, but also foreign interference and the proliferation of corruption and scandal under his watch. There are various other matters that we would be interested in hearing from the minister on. That is why, as part of the subcommittee report, we proposed amendments that would allow for the meaningful questioning of ministers, instead of this very limited and abbreviated interaction.

I know members of this committee and members of the public are very interested in our having that opportunity to question ministers, so in that vein I would propose—time having elapsed, with perhaps my having persuaded some members—that we now proceed to hear from the ministers.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

If the Conservatives want to filibuster to avoid their embarrassment over Bill S-210, that's their prerogative. We want to deal—

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thanks very much, Chair.

It is really interesting to hear the Liberals talk. I'd like to address two things. First is what is an underhanded swipe at a bill that passed the House of Commons with a plurality of support here only a number of months ago, and that is Bill S-210.

What's interesting is there was some support from all parties, but functionally what this motion and Ms. Khalid seem to be doing is to somehow stand up for the very companies that she just stated she didn't trust. She wants to stand up and allow them to distribute violent pornographic material to minors. That is astounding, shocking and, quite frankly, Chair, absolutely disgusting.

I've taken a great interest in Bill S-210 because of the detrimental effects that a young person's exposure to violent, explicit material can have on their mental health and their ability to form productive relationships. For the Liberal Party to be doing the bidding of a company like MindGeek, which runs sites like Pornhub, which is willfully.... The Privacy Commissioner referenced earlier today how they've just completed a study on some of the privacy concerns with that. It's astounding that they would be opposed to this, something that united all senators.

Chair, you've heard me talk, I'm sure, at length about some of the frustrations I have with the other place, as we refer to it, but when S-210 passed unanimously through the Senate, I believe that there were more than 40 different options presented for a site that hosts explicit material to be able to verify someone's age. However, the Liberals don't care about the facts. They want to play politics and suggest that this is about digital ID.

Mr. Chair, I tell you, this is divide and distract at its best. They are doing the bidding of some of the worst corporate players in history, as has been revealed by the good work of Canadian parliamentarians as well as in an exposé in The New York Times that was describing this. That those Liberal members would carry water for that is absolutely unbelievable.

There is a lot more that certainly I could say about that, but it is obvious that either they haven't read Bill S-210 or haven't cared enough about doing the research into what's being proposed and how it can actually protect young people, or they are intentionally trying to divide and distract on an agenda, and I won't even pretend to know what that involves, because it is certainly beyond the pale.

Mr. Chair, I would like to, if I could, share just briefly about some of the assertions related to the Charter. Again, this is what I can suggest is nothing more than an attempt to divide and distract Canadians. What the Leader of the Opposition has made very clear is that when it comes to the most heinous criminals in our history, the Quebec City mosque shooter as an example, the justice reforms that he is proposing would make sure that the only way heinous criminals like that leave prison is in a box.

I know my colleague from Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes said something similar in the House of Commons, but, Chair, the Liberals don't seem to care about that. They care more about trying to, I don't know, score cheap political points or something, to divide and distract, as opposed to having meaningful discussions around justice reform. Certainly, when it comes to the notwithstanding clause, it's as if the Liberals forget that section 33 is a part of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Now, are they deceiving and misleading Canadians on that? It goes back to the very fundamental basics of the Westminster democratic system, and that is the fact that Parliament is the supreme lawmaking authority of the land. I would hope that their intentions are not nefarious, but it certainly leads...and I'll let Canadians be the judge of that.

When it comes to the criminal justice reforms that are being contemplated and suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, it has been very clear, and freedom, Chair, is a sword that slices in both directions, for those you agree with and those you disagree with. For members of the Liberal Party to suggest somehow that they stand up for the charter when they are literally—and this is not the figurative use of the word literally—the only government in Canadian history to willfully suspend charter rights against Canadians.... They did that, and it was found that they had done that illegally.

Chair, it is unbelievable that they would use these sorts of tactics, that they would gaslight, that they would—I don't even know if there are words that are strong enough that would be parliamentary to describe what the Liberals are doing on this.

If they want to discuss the use of the notwithstanding clause, I'm happy to do that, Chair, because there is a very clear case to be made that the most heinous criminals in Canadian history deserve to be behind bars. I challenge members of the Liberal Party to go and tell their constituents that those individuals should walk free on Canadian streets. I challenge them to go to their constituents again when it comes to the issue that I first talked about, when it comes to the suggestion that some of the worst corporate players, some of whom have even moved their operations out of Canada, should somehow have a free pass to distribute explicit material to minors, knowing the devastating impact that has on the mental health of our youth, Chair. We are seeing the worst of what so many people think of when they think of politicians.

Chair, I could certainly say a lot more on this, whether on the constitutionality of what we have been talking about or on the hypocrisy of members of the Liberal Party or on how it is astounding that they are trying to divide and distract in this way to somehow score some cheap political points—maybe because they're desperate, seeing as it's actually Canadians who get to make choices in elections and that is something that no parliamentarian should ever take for granted.

Chair, I will move an amendment, if I may, because I think there is a valid point to be made. This is an opportunity. Let's take the political spin out of what the Liberals are trying to gaslight Canadians with, and let's move to a point where we can have a real discussion about what it means to actually protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians.

Therefore, I would move that we strike the first part of the sentence, up to “the committee”, and then keep paragraph a) and delete paragraph b).

Chair, we will make sure the clerk gets a copy of that in a moment.

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Mr. Genuis is yet again impugning the credibility of members opposite. That's number one.

Number two is that when they purport to care about a piece of legislation while they are clearly filibustering, why would we not just move unanimous consent and move this forward?

Again, I would ask that we give unanimous consent for the extension that has been sought. If they're serious about a conversation about Bill S-210, let's do it, because it's clear that Mr. Genuis is here to run down the clock and not do much else.

[Ron McKinnon, Liberal, Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC]

On a point of order, as this meeting seems to be winding down, I'm wondering if we can get the unanimous consent of the committee to request an extension of 30 sitting days for the consideration of Bill S-210 and that the chair accordingly present a report to the House.

I should think, considering the importance that our Conservative colleagues seem to place on Bill S-210, that doing a proper study will be most acceptable to them. I wonder if we can get unanimous consent for such a motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

While we're in this, Mr. Genuis, and maybe as a privilege of the chair, I want to let members know that based on the last two meetings, I will be requesting a 30-day extension on Bill S-210. I think it's important that we follow through on our—