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.

[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—

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As Mr. Genuis said, he was not at the meeting of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security. He could simply stop alluding to what was said or not said during that meeting. I was at that meeting. I have been attending the subcommittee and committee meetings for more than four years. We have always worked by consensus.

If there are things missing from the subcommittee report, it is because the people at the subcommittee decided not to include them in the report. The vice-chair of the committee is a Conservative. He was there. If something is missing from the report, it is because he agreed not to include it in the report.

I see that the Conservatives clearly do not agree on that and they are not satisfied with the performance of their Conservative critic at the subcommittee, but that is not my problem, nor the committee's problem, nor the subcommittee's problem. If they want to amend the subcommittee's report because they disagree with the agenda that was set, that is not our problem. We have decided to take up the agenda again once we have cleared what has been set in the agenda.

I see that in the Conservative Party's proposed amendment, they have decided not to amend the first two items, which refer Bill S-210 for study. The witnesses invited to participate in that study are here today.

The Conservatives seem to agree with studying the bill, unless they have changed their minds, which may be the case. I propose that we move immediately to the study of Bill S‑210. The Chair even saw fit to allow us, during the second hour, to take a moment to talk about upcoming work.

Out of respect for the witnesses who are here, out of respect for the other members of the committee and out of respect for the members of the subcommittee who reached a consensus on the report we are talking about today, I think that we could come back to the agenda, vote on this motion and question the witnesses who are here to talk about Bill S‑210.

Thank you.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

This won't be long. I'm just looking at our witnesses who are here for Bill S-210. I'm just wondering if Mr. Genuis can give us an indication of whether the witnesses should remain. Will we eventually get to them? I don't want to waste their time any further.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 106 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

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

Please note that an in camera portion of 30 minutes is planned at the end of the meeting for discussing committee business.

With regard to avoiding feedback, before we begin, I would like to remind all members and other meeting participants in the room of the following important preventive measures.

To prevent disruptive and potentially harmful audio feedback incidents that can cause injuries, all in-person participants are reminded to keep their earpieces away from all microphones at all times.

As indicated in the communication from the Speaker to all members on Monday, April 29, the following measures have been taken to help prevent audio feedback incidents.

All earpieces have been replaced by a model that greatly reduces the probability of audio feedback. The new earpieces are black in colour, whereas the former earpieces were grey. Please only use an approved black earpiece.

By default, all unused earpieces will be unplugged at the start of a meeting.

When you are not using your earpiece, please place it face down on the middle of the sticker for this purpose that you will find on the table, as indicated.

Please consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.

The room layout has been adjusted to increase the distance between microphones and reduce the chance of feedback from an ambient earpiece.

These measures are in place so that we can conduct our business without interruption and protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters.

Thank you all for your co-operation.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format.

I would also like to make a few comments for the benefits of members and witnesses: Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking, and I will remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair.

I would like to welcome our witnesses for the first hour and a half.

From the Department of Canadian Heritage, we have Owen Ripley, associate assistant deputy minister, cultural affairs; Katie O'Meara, policy analyst; and Galen Teschner-Weaver, policy analyst.

Now I would invite you to make an opening statement of up to five minutes.

Pornography

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. In this case, It is in support of a petition that implores the House, in brief, to pass Bill S-210 from the Senate, the protecting young persons from exposure to pornography act. Those who have studied and are aware of this bill know this is in regard to age verification to access pornography.

Stopping Internet Sexual Exploitation Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words in support of Bill C-270, which is an excellent bill from my colleague from Peace River—Westlock, who has been working so hard over his nine years in Parliament to defend the interests of his constituents on important issues like firearms, forestry and fracking, but also to stand up for justice and the recognition of the universal human dignity of all people, including and especially the most vulnerable.

Bill C-270 seeks to create mechanisms for the effective enforcement of substantively already existing legal provisions that prohibit non-consensual distribution of intimate images and child pornography. Right now, as the law stands, it is a criminal offence to produce this type of horrific material, but there are not the appropriate legal mechanisms to prevent the distribution of this material by, for instance, large pornography websites.

It has come to light that Pornhub, which is headquartered in Canada, has completely failed to prevent the presence on its platform of non-consensual and child-depicting pornographic images. This has been a matter that has been studied in great detail at parliamentary committees. My colleague for Peace River—Westlock has played a central role, but other members from other parties have as well, in identifying the fact that Pornhub and other websites have not only failed but have shown no interest in meaningfully protecting potential victims of non-consensual and child pornographic images.

It is already illegal to produce these images. Why, therefore, should it not also be clearly illegal to distribute those images without having the necessary proof of consent? This bill would require that there be verification of age and consent associated with images that are distributed. It is a common-sense legal change that would require and affect greater compliance with existing criminal prohibitions on the creation of these images. It is based on the evidence heard at committee and based on the reality that major pornography websites, many of which are headquartered in Canada, are continuing to allow this material to exist. To clarify, the fact that those images are on those websites means that we desperately need stronger legal tools to protect children and stronger legal tools to protect people who are victims of the non-consensual sharing of their images.

Further, in response to the recognition of the potential harms on children associated with exposure to pornography or associated with having images taken of them and published online, there has been discussion in Parliament and a number of different bills put forward designed to protect children in vulnerable situations. These bills are, most notably, Bill C-270 and Bill S-210.

Bill S-210 would protect children by requiring meaningful age verification for those who are viewing pornography. It is recognized that exposing children to sexual images is a form of child abuse. If an adult were to show videos or pictures to a child of a sexual nature, that would be considered child abuse. However, when websites fail to have meaningful age verification and, therefore, very young children are accessing pornography, there are not currently the legal tools to hold them accountable for that. We need to recognize that exposing young children to sexual images is a form of child abuse, and therefore it is an urgent matter that we pass legislation requiring meaningful age verification. That is Bill S-210.

Then we have Bill C-270, which would protect children in a different context. It would protect children from having their images depicted as part of child pornography. Bill C-270 takes those existing prohibitions further by requiring that those distributing images also have proof of age and consent.

This is common sense; the use of criminal law is appropriate here because we are talking about instances of child sexual abuse. Both Bill S-210 and Bill C-270 deal with child sexual abuse. It should be clear that the criminal law, not some complicated nebulous regulatory regime, is the appropriate mechanism for dealing with child abuse.

In that context, we also have a government bill that has been put forward, Bill C-63, which it calls the online harms act. The proposed bill is kind of a bizarre combination of talking about issues of radically different natures; there are some issues around speech, changes to human rights law and, potentially, attempts to protect children, as we have talked about.

The freedom of speech issues raised by the bill have been well discussed. The government has been denounced from a broad range of quarters, including some of their traditional supporters, for the failures of Bill C-63 on speech.

However, Bill C-63 also profoundly fails to be effective when it comes to child protection and the removal of non-consensual images. It would create a new bureaucratic structure, and it is based on a 24-hour takedown model; it says that if something is identified, it should be taken down within 24 hours. Anybody involved in this area will tell us that 24-hour takedown is totally ineffective, because once something is on the Internet, it is likely to be downloaded and reshared over and over again. The traumatization, the revictimization that happens, continues to happen in the face of a 24-hour takedown model.

This is why we need strong Criminal Code measures to protect children. The Conservative bills, Bill S-210 and Bill C-270, would provide the strong criminal tools to protect children without all the additional problems associated with Bill C-63. I encourage the House to pass these proposed strong child protection Criminal Code-amending bills, Bill S-210 and Bill C-270. They would protect children from child abuse, and given the legal vacuums that exist in this area, there can be no greater, more important objective than protecting children from the kind of violence and sexualization they are currently exposed to.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the subject that we are dealing with this evening is a sensitive one. My colleagues have clearly demonstrated that in the last couple of minutes.

We all have access to the Internet and we basically use it for three reasons: for personal reasons, for professional reasons and for leisure, which can sometimes overlap with personal reasons. Pornography is one of those uses that is both for leisure and for personal reasons. To each their own.

The use of pornography is a personal choice that is not illegal. Some people might question that. We might agree or disagree, but it is a personal decision. However, the choice that one person makes for their own pleasure may be the cause of another person's or many other people's nightmare. Basically, that is what Bill C-270 seeks to prevent, what it seeks to sanction. The purpose of the bill is to ensure that people do not have to go through hell because of pornography. This bill seeks to criminalize the fact that, under the guise of legality, some of the images that are being viewed were taken or are being used illegally.

I want to talk briefly about the problem this bill addresses and the solutions that it proposes. Then, to wrap up, I will share some of my own thoughts about it.

For context for this bill and two others that are being studied, Bill S‑210 and C‑63, it was a newspaper article that sounded the alarm. After the article came out, a House of Commons committee that my esteemed colleague from Laurentides—Labelle sits on looked at the issue. At that time, the media informed the public that videos of women and children were available on websites even though these women and, naturally, these children never gave their consent to be filmed or for their video to be shared. We also learned that this included youths under 18. As I said, a committee looked at the issue. The images and testimonies received by the committee members were so shocking that several bills that I mentioned earlier were introduced to try to tackle the issue in whole or in part.

I want to be clear: watching pornography is not the problem—to each their own. If someone likes watching others have sex, that is none of my concern or anyone else's. However, the problem is the lack of consent of the people involved in the video and the use of children, as I have already said.

I am sure that the vast majority of consumers of pornography were horrified to find out that some of the videos they watched may have involved young people under the age of 18. These children sometimes wear makeup to look older. Women could be filmed without their knowledge by a partner or former partner, who then released the video. These are intimate interactions. People have forgotten what intimacy means. If a person agrees to be filmed in an intimate situation because it is kind of exciting or whatever, that is fine, but intimacy, as the word itself implies, does not mean public.

When a young person or an adult decides to show the video to friends to prove how cool it is that they got someone else to do something, that is degrading. It is beyond the pale. It gets to me because I saw that kind of thing in schools. Kids were so pleased with themselves. I am sorry, but it is rarely the girls who are so pleased with themselves. They are the ones who suffer the negative consequences. At the end of the day, they are the ones who get dragged through the mud. Porn sites were no better. They tried to absolve themselves by saying that they just broadcast the stuff and it is not up to them to find out if the person consented or was at least 18. Broadcasting is just as bad as producing without consent. It encourages these illegal, degrading, utterly dehumanizing acts.

I am going back to my notes now. The problem is that everyone is blaming everyone else. The producer says it is fine. The platform says it is fine. Ultimately, governments say the same thing. This is 2024. The Internet is not new. Man being man—and I am talking about humankind, humans in general—we were bound to find ourselves in degrading situations. The government waited far too long to legislate on this issue.

In fact, the committee that looked into the matter could only observe the failure of content moderation practices, as well as the failure to protect people's privacy. Even if the video was taken down, it would resurface because a consumer had downloaded it and thought it was a good idea to upload it again and watch it again. This is unspeakable. It seems to me that people need to use some brain cells. If a video can no longer be found, perhaps there is a reason for that, and the video should not be uploaded again. Thinking and using one's head is not something governments can control, but we have to do everything we can.

What is the purpose of this bill and the other two bills? We want to fight against all forms of sexual exploitation and violence online, end the streaming and marketing of all pornographic material involving minors, prevent and prohibit the streaming of non-consensual explicit content, force adult content companies and streaming services to control the streaming of this content and make them accountable and criminally responsible for the presence of this content on their online sites. Enough with shirking responsibility. Enough with saying: it is not my fault if she feels degraded, if her reputation is ruined and if, at the end of the day, she feels like throwing herself off a bridge. Yes, the person who distributes pornographic material and the person who makes it are equally responsible.

Bill C‑270 defines the word “consent” and the expression “pornographic material”, which is good. It adds two new penalties. Essentially, a person who makes or distributes the material must ensure that the person involved in the video is 18 and has given their express consent. If the distributor does not ask for it and does not require it, they are at fault.

We must also think about some of the terms, such as “privacy”, “education”, but also the definition of “distributor” because Bill C-270 focuses primarily on distributors for commercial purposes. However, there are other distributors who are not in this for commercial purposes. That is not nearly as pretty. I believe we need to think about that aspect. Perhaps legal consumers of pornography would like to see their rights protected.

I will end with just one sentence: A real statesperson protects the dignity of the weak. That is our role.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

I would like now to welcome our witnesses. We have the sponsor of Bill S-210 in the Senate, the Honourable Julie Miville-Dechêne, senator. We have Jérôme Lussier, director of parliamentary affairs from the office of Senator Miville-Dechêne. Our colleague MP Karen Vecchio, who was the sponsor of the bill in the House, was scheduled to appear this afternoon. Unfortunately, she had to cancel her appearance.

Before we get started, I would like to go back to the business report of the subcommittee.

Members, your subcommittee met on Thursday, May 2, 2024, to consider the business of the committee, and agreed on several items. You all received by email last Friday a copy of the seventh report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure.

Does the committee wish to adopt the report?

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 105 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 commencing 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 remind all members and other meeting participants in the room of the following important preventive measures.

To prevent disruptive and potentially harmful audio feedback incidents that can cause injuries, all in-person participants are reminded to keep their earpieces away from all microphones at all times.

As indicated in the communiqué from the Speaker to all members on Monday, April 29, the following measures have been taken to help prevent audio feedback incidents. All earpieces have been replaced by a model that greatly reduces the probability of audio feedback. The new earpieces are black in colour, whereas the former earpieces were grey. Please use only an approved black earpiece. By default, all unused earpieces will be unplugged at the start of a meeting.

When you are not using your earpiece, please place it face down on the middle of the sticker for this purpose that you will find on the table, as indicated. Please consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.

The room layout has been adjusted to increase the distance between microphones and reduce the chance of feedback from an ambient earpiece. These measures are in place so that we can conduct our business without interruption and protect the health and safety of all participants, including our interpreters.

Thank you for your co-operation.

Today’s meeting is taking place in a hybrid format.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefits of members and witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. All comments should be addressed through the Chair.

I would now like to welcome our witnesses and the person who is the sponsor of Bill S-210—

Pornography

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I also present a petition organized by Pastor Joe Fiorentino of the Quadeville Pentecostal Church in my great riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

The petitioners call on the House of Commons to immediately pass Bill S-210 without delay, which aims to protect our children from accessing harmful sexual and explicit pornographic content online. I would like to thank Pastor Fiorentino and all those in his congregation who signed this petition.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the next petition I have is, again, signed by residents of North Okanagan—Shuswap and Canadians. It states that sexually explicit material, including demeaning material and material depicting sexual violence, can easily be accessed on the Internet by young persons. The petitioners, therefore, call upon the House of Commons to adopt Bill S-210 to protect young persons from exposure to pornography.

[Dave Epp, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Leamington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I bring forward a petition to the attention of the chamber. It has been spearheaded by the St. Michael's Catholic Women's League, based out of Ridgetown, though many other Canadians have signed it.

The petitioners want to draw attention to the fact that the depiction of sexual violence and access to it, particular for young people, is far too easy in this country. It is not protected by any effective age verification methods, so they want to make the House fully aware that this is an important health and public safety concern.

Therefore, they are encouraging us to adopt Bill S-210, which would protect young persons from exposure to pornography.