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.

[Julie Miville-Dechêne, Senator, Quebec, ISG]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for the invitation to talk about Bill S-210. I'd be happy to answer questions in French, but I'm going to give my speech in English, because that's the language in which most of the criticism has been voiced.

To answer your question directly, let me say the following: This bill has been the subject of two studies at committee, because of the election. We have heard from 24 witnesses and there were 28 briefs. So we can say that this bill has been thoroughly studied at the Senate.

Bill S-210 seeks to apply to online porn the rules that normally apply off-line. The bill does three things. First, it requires websites that offer porn to verify the age of users before they can access that content. Second, it sets up an enforcement mechanism that can result in non-complying websites getting blocked in Canada. Third, it provides that acceptable age verification methods will be decided in regulation, to be adopted after consultation and with input from experts. The bill specifies that any approved method must be reliable, collect information solely for age verification purposes, destroy any personal information once the verification is done and comply with best practices.

Polls indicate that close to 80% of Canadians support age verification to access porn online, but Bill S-210 has been attacked, and I want to correct some misrepresentations.

It has been said that no country has done this. This is false. Germany, France, the U.K., the European Union and several U.S. states have passed laws and regulation to impose age verification to access porn. Spain is expected to launch a pilot project soon. Australia, which had paused this work, announced last week that it would move ahead.

It has been painted as a partisan or ideological bill to control sexuality. False. Age verification is supported by the socialist government of Spain and the conservative government in the U.K. In California, an age verification bill was recently approved unanimously by two legislative committees. This is not partisan legislation.

It has been called an attack on free expression. False again. Bill S-210 would not affect the availability of porn for adults; it would simply prevent children from accessing it. In Europe, porn sites have challenged age verification laws and have failed at every stage. In the U.S.—a country known for its robust speech protection—porn sites have challenged the laws and they have failed all the way to the Supreme Court.

It has been said that age verification would mean submitting personal identification to porn sites. False again. In Europe and elsewhere, age verification is typically done by third party companies using methods that transmit no personal information to porn sites. These are among the best practices we would expect in Canada as well.

It has been said that this bill would block all forms of nudity. False. The bill uses the standard definition of pornography found in the Criminal Code. The bill also provides for usual exceptions for art, science and education.

It has been said that this bill would impose age verification on all websites. False. Bill S-210 only requires age verification to access porn content. If a website contains porn and non-porn content, age verification is only required to access the porn content.

It has been said that there's no way to check someone's age without compromising privacy. False. France is developing a double anonymous method. The U.K. regulator has recommended age estimation approaches that collect no information. Australia has explained its recent decision to move ahead with age verification by saying that the technology it looked at only a year ago has already improved.

Finally, it has been said that age verification is useless because kids will find ways around it. This is once again false. Actual studies show that only a small number of children know how to evade these restrictions. It's possible that some older teenagers and adults will use VPNs to bypass age verification, but it's highly unlikely that large numbers of eight, 10 and 12-year-olds will do so.

I will be happy to take questions, but please, please, don't let Canada be the last place on earth where pornographers are more protected than children.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Actually, this process is not particularly unusual for this place at this time of year, nor is the sudden rapprochement towards the end.

To our witnesses, thank you for waiting. We'll continue with your remarks now, followed by questions. You were slated for a full hour. We have resources to give you that full hour. Mr. Dufresne is out there with Ms. Lara Ives. I've advised them that, when we start, we will bring them in an hour later, so we will have that full panel, as well.

That being the case, I would like to now welcome the witness who is the sponsor of Bill S-210 in the Senate. I should note that Senator Miville-Dechêne has been shepherding this bill through the various processes since 2020. I think she's launched it four times.

Anyway, we're glad to at last have you able to speak.

We have the Honourable Julie Miville-Dechêne, senator. We also have, as an individual, Jérôme Lussier, director of parliamentary affairs for the office of Senator Miville-Dechêne.

I now invite the senator to make an opening statement of up to five minutes.

Please go ahead.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Well, that is true. That is an absolute. Let's leave it at this point, where they can go forward as best they can, because they teach us, anyway.

That being the case, we have unanimous consent for that agreement.

Are you clear, Mr. Clerk, on what that is?

Okay. Very well. Let us get back to Bill S-210.

Let me first acknowledge that Mr. Genuis was not wrong before. I hate to say that, but it's true.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

The clerk distributed on Monday, May 6, and May 24, a draft budget on Bill S-210 in the amount of $15,000.

Does the committee wish to adopt the budget? Can I have a show of hands?

(Motion agreed to)

Similarly, I note that the deadline to report Bill S-210 to the House is Friday, June 7.

Is it the will of the committee to request an extension of 30 sitting days for the consideration of Bill S-210 and that the chair present a report to the House? May I have a show of hands on this, please.

[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—