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.

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?

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Heath MacDonald]

You were just the one telling me to hurry up, and now you're telling me to let him answer. I think we know the answer.

Thank you, Mr. Kingston.

Thank you, Mr. Volpe.

Before we go, I have a couple of reminders.

I'd like to remind committee members that there will be an informal meeting with the Ukrainian delegation on Thursday from 10:15 a.m. to 11:15 a.m.

Finally, note that the visit to the Port of Montreal will be Monday, May 13. The clerk is currently working on a draft program on logistics.

We also have Bill S-210. We need to create a deadline for witnesses so that the clerk can start working on it. You can bring this back Thursday, but maybe think about it.

Yes, Alistair.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have one more petition that I will bring forward briefly.

These individuals are very concerned about sexually explicit material that is so demeaning and sexually violent and can easily be accessed by young people online. A significant portion of this sexually explicit material is made available for commercial purposes and is not protected by any effective age verification method. However, it is very clear that everyone believes that we have a responsibility to make sure that these young people do not have access.

Online verification was the primary recommendation made by stakeholders during a 2017 study by the Standing Committee on Health. These petitioners call upon the House to adopt Bill S-210, the protecting young persons from exposure to pornography act.

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

My concluding remarks would be, with respect to Bill S-210 proposed by Senator Miville-Dechêne, that there are very legitimate questions that relate to privacy interests. We need to understand that age verification and age-appropriate design features are entrenched in Bill C-63, something that Monsieur Fortin seemed to misunderstand.

Second, the idea of uploading the age-verification measure such as one's government ID is something that has been roundly criticized, including by people like law enforcement, who'd be concerned about what that kind of privacy disclosure would do in terms of perpetuating financial crimes against Canadians.

What we need to be doing here is keeping Canadians safe by ensuring that their age-appropriate design measures have been informed by a conversation between law enforcement, government and the platforms themselves. There are examples of how to do this, and we're keen to work on those examples and to get this important bill into this committee so we can debate the best ways forward.

Thank you.

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

The point I want to make about Bill S‑210 is that Bill C‑63 already contains age verification mechanisms. Furthermore, we must always protect the privacy rights of Canadians. In other words—

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

We are definitely in favour of Bill C‑40.

We were disappointed by the Conservatives' filibustering tactics during consideration of this bill, in terms of how cases or files are handled for persons who speak French. Of course, translation will still be part of this new commission's procedures. That will be helpful to complainants or people who want to request a review.

With respect to Bill S‑210, I would like to point out something that is not true—

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, also, individuals are very concerned about sexually explicit and demeaning material, depicting sexual violence, that can easily be accessed on the Internet by people as young as eight, sitting at a computer. A significant proportion of this sexually explicit material is made available for commercial purposes, and it is not protected by any effective age verification method. Anyone who makes sexually explicit material available on the Internet for commercial purposes has a responsibility to ensure that it is not accessed by young persons.

Online age verification was a primary recommendation made by stakeholders during a 2017 study by the Standing Committee on Health. The petitioners call upon the House of Commons to adopt Bill S-210, the protecting young persons from exposure to pornography act.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, the second petition is in regard to sexually explicit and demeaning information depicting sexual violence online that is absolutely available to young people.

It is made available for commercial purposes and is not protected by any effective age verification methods. Apparently, the Parliament recognizes that the harmful effects of increasing accessibility of sexually explicit materials online for young persons is an important public health and public safety concern.

Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the House to adopt Bill S-210, the protecting young persons from exposure to pornography act.

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.

In the first petition, the petitioners are concerned about how easy it is for young people to access sexually explicit material online, including violent and degrading explicit material. They comment on how this access is an important public health and public safety concern. The petitioners note that a significant portion of commercially accessible sexually explicit material has no age verification software. Moreover, that age verification software can ascertain the age of users without breaching their privacy rights.

The petitioners note many serious harms associated with sexually explicit materials, including the development of addiction and attitudes favourable to sexual violence and harassment of women. As such, these petitioners call on the House of Commons to pass Bill S-210, the protecting young persons from exposure to pornography act.

[Doug Shipley, Conservative, Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour to present a petition on behalf of constituents in my riding of Barrie—Springwater—Oro-Medonte. These petitioners note that a significant proportion of the sexually explicit material accessed online is made available on the Internet for commercial purposes and is not protected by any effective age-verification method, and that the consumption of sexually explicit material by young persons is associated with a range of serious harms. Therefore, the petitioners call on the House of Commons to adopt Bill S-210, the protecting young persons from exposure to pornography act.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have four petitions to present today.

The individuals in the first petition are very concerned about the sexually explicit material that is available on the Internet. It is demeaning and sexually violent and, unfortunately, it is extremely easy to be seen by young people. Because it is made for commercial purposes and is not protected by any effective age verification method, the petitioners are very concerned with what is happening to young people.

Therefore, the petitioners are calling on the government to adopt Bill S-210, the protecting young persons from exposure to pornography act. They say that online age verification was the primary recommendation made by stakeholders in the 2017 study by the Standing Committee on Health.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition I am presenting is to do with online verification for access to pornography on the Internet. Petitioners are calling upon the House of Commons to adopt Bill S-210, which seeks to protect young persons from exposure to pornography.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Thank you very much.

Today in the House of Commons, we actually passed Bill S-210 to go to committee. It's looking at age verification to ensure that minors are not seeing pornography.

I'm going to start with you, Jeannette, if you don't mind, regarding parental controls. Can you share with me right now how many children, as you're investigating, are able to bypass those parental controls? Do you have statistics showing that?

Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Greg Fergus]

It being 3:31 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded on the motion at second reading stage of Bill S-210 under Private Members' Business.

Call in the members.

The House resumed from December 11 consideration of the motion that Bill S-210, An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois believes that Bill S-210 is an important bill that reflects our role here in the House rather well. Sometimes we go through disgraceful sittings where we have vote after vote on things that we know will not advance our constituents' interests or values. It often disappoints me for various reasons when people play partisan politics. What goes on in the House is not always inspiring.

However, this morning we are presented with something that is inspiring. We have a chance to fix a problem. It is always a pleasure to hear this kind of proposal, and I would be happy to help advance this bill.

Shockingly, there is currently no mechanism whatsoever in Quebec or in Canada to prevent a young person from accessing pornographic content on the Internet. From infancy to adulthood, our young people grow up in a system or an environment where they have access to all sorts of images and videos that probably none of us wants them to be able to access. We must fix that. That is our duty. We must make sure that the children who will make up tomorrow's society grow up in an environment that is conducive to a decent education and to good mental and physical health. Bill S-210 will contribute to that, so I am proud to be a part of this process.

What will Bill S-210 do? Essentially, it will do three things. First of all, it will create a method for verifying the age of the individuals visiting these sites. I admit that this is quite a challenge. I am not a geek or Internet expert, so I have a little trouble imagining how it will get done, but I have faith in the people who know a lot more about these things than me. I look forward to seeing how this age verification method is going to be implemented. Once again, it is a big challenge, but it is a big challenge for our society, and I agree wholeheartedly that we should move forward with it. Work will be done in committee. I suspect that we will probably hear a little, maybe even a lot, about existing or potential methods of verifying age. The matter deserves serious attention to ensure that we come up with a good, reliable method.

The bill requires the method to meet five criteria.

First of all, it must be “reliable”. I think that goes without saying.

Second, it must maintain “user privacy”. We live in a society where every individual is entitled to privacy, and we wish to preserve that right. As a result, the mechanism will have to be sufficiently intrusive to work, while also maintaining the individual's privacy.

Third, it must collect and use personal information “solely for age-verification purposes”. We do not want the method to be used for purposes other than enforcing the law, which I think is a legitimate and prudent concern.

Fourth, speaking of prudence, we need to make sure that “any personal information collected for age-verification purposes” is destroyed once the verification is completed. We do not want personal information to stay on the web. The information must therefore be destroyed once the verification is completed.

Fifth, the method must generally comply “with best practices in the fields of age verification and privacy protection”. That is obviously a positive thing. We cannot stand against something as obviously positive as compliance with best practices.

The age verification method will have to respect all those criteria. I am eager to hear more about it in committee, and I suspect the discussions will be very interesting. I hope that we will be able to pass the bill quickly and that it will take effect before our young people are further contaminated.

I said that there were three things the bill would do. First, it will create the method, and second, it will designate an enforcement authority. That is also important. We do not want to entrust the responsibility to the owners of the pornographic sites or other sites to which we wish to control access. I think it is prudent to have an independent authority that has the necessary skills, experience and objectivity to enforce the law.

Lastly, the bill provides for an annual report to confirm the number of applications made, the number of verifications done, and the final outcome. This will allow us to see how the system is working over time, year by year. Will it need minor adjustments? If so, we will make them. If not, we will have implemented a useful and effective system that respects the values and interests of all Quebeckers and Canadians.

For all of these reasons, we will gladly support this bill. As I said earlier, I believe we were elected to introduce these types of bills. I will be happy to work with my Liberal, Conservative, NDP and Green Party colleagues to ensure that the bill satisfies everyone and is true to its underlying principles.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Madam Speaker, the Internet is an amazing tool. It is fast, powerful, readily accessible to all and inexpensive. Economically, socially and culturally, it has levelled the playing field so anybody and everybody can be their own publisher, their own printer and their own marketing agent. They can even be aspiring musicians or artists without the need for an intermediary like a publishing company, a printing house, a record label or an agent. The Internet is the great democratizing tool of our generation, not unlike the Gutenberg printing press was 500 years ago in Europe, which changed the face of Europe, broke apart medieval culture and presented the Europe we recognize today.

Just like the printing press was used for good like printing the Bible in mass quantities in many languages, it was also used for evil like spreading lies about people and defaming their reputations. In that way, the Internet too is used for good. I have given some examples of that already, but it is also used for ill like spreading lies about people and defaming their reputation, so maybe things have not really changed all that much. Indeed human nature has not changed, but our tools have become more powerful so the ill we can do with our tools is just so much more pervasive.

One of these evils I am talking about is the danger of pornography and how the Internet has made it readily available to the whole world. Today we are thinking about children who also have access to pornography on the Internet.

Today we are talking about Bill S-210, an act that would restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material. This is a private member's bill that originated at the other place by Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne. In this House, in a rare show of non-partisanship, it has seconders from members of all parties in the House. At least I think that is correct. I know it has strong support in my caucus.

I want to thank the senator for sponsoring this important initiative, and I congratulate her on her determination and for bringing it to this point despite numerous delays and resistance from vested interests.

What would Bill S-210 do?

The summary of the bill reads as follows:

This enactment makes it an offence for organizations to make sexually explicit material available to young persons on the Internet.

Why is that necessary? What is the problem trying to be resolved here? I did my own research, on the Internet, free of charge, and found an article published by Psychology Today, which is a recognized and respected publication. This is what the article had to say about pornography and children:

A far cry from looking at a sensual magazine centerfold, today’s adolescents are viewing online pornographic videos with motions and sounds, depicting every potential sexual act that can be imagined. The internet, which has been called the “Triple-A Engine” due to its affordability, accessibility, and anonymity...has dramatically changed the pornography industry; yet its effects on adolescents’ development is still unfolding.

Senator Miville-Dechêne did a lot of research on this topic, as evidenced by her very thoughtful speech in the Senate a few years ago. It has been a long and winding road for her to get it to this point. On an earlier version of this bill, she gave a very compelling case that, first, we have a significant societal problem and, second, the government has a significant role to play. We can accept her research and her conclusions that we have a problem and there is something we can do about it.

The following is from her very thoughtful speech, which I found very compelling.

She stated:

Scientific research is making more and more worrisome connections between the consumption of pornography and the health or behaviour of young people. When adolescents frequently view pornography, it can lead to compulsive consumption, create unrealistic expectations..., generate fear and anxiety, damage their self-esteem...[and] cause symptoms of depression and impair social functioning.

I accept the evidence that we have a problem. What is the role for the government? What would Bill S-210 do? It is always helpful to first look at a bill would not do, just to narrow the parameters.

It would not do these things: It would not make pornography illegal, at least not more illegal than it already is, because we do have some rules around that. It would not affect people 18 and over, because the target audience here is our children. Finally, it would not prevent people from sharing pornography privately online, because the focus of this legislation is organizations, companies, enterprises and firms that are in the business of hosting porn platforms.

What would it do? Bill S-210 would create a new offence, that of making sexually explicit material available to a young person on the Internet. That is the new crime. It would be punishable with a $250,000 fine for a first offence and $500,000 fines for subsequent events. This is serious business.

There is a due diligence defence for porn platforms. If an organization is under investigation, it has a good defence if it can demonstrate that it implemented a prescribed age verification method to limit access by children.

The preamble to the bill says, “online age-verification technology is increasingly sophisticated and can now effectively ascertain the age of users without breaching their privacy rights”. I think it is a good quote:

There is probably some argument about that, and I am interested to learn more about it. What is at the heart of the bill is that we tell the porn platforms to do their best to verify a person's age using age verification tools prescribed and approved by the government before one grants them access. If one does that, one is within the law.

What are those prescribed tools, and who would administer the program? Would it be the CRTC, the RCMP or a new bureaucracy?

The answer is that we are going to have to wait and see, stay tuned. All that needs to be worked out.

This is a private member's bill, so the bill cannot include any new expenditures. A way to get around that is to allow the government to set up the regulatory framework, the regulatory scheme that is going to implement the framework set up by this bill. There would be a one-year coming-into-force delay to give the government time to do that, to figure out the next steps.

For now, the bill is not perfect, but it is a good first step in the right direction; as we often hear from the government's side of the House, much more work still needs to be done. I agree with that.

The process for getting the bill here has been a long and winding road. It has faced resistance from many corners, including from those who say it infringes on our constitutional rights to freedom of expression, freedom of the press and freedom of other forms of media and communication.

Others mention the age verification technology and methodology through face recognition technology, because that would probably be what we are talking about. We do not know for sure, because the regulations have not been drafted. Privacy experts say that this infringes on our privacy rights under federal and provincial legislation.

They may be right. This is a real concern. I am looking forward to hearing from our constitutional law, privacy and technology experts at committee to have them help us steer around these challenges. Then, we can implement a law that is lawful and effective in keeping our children safe.

I will be voting yes to this bill at second reading, so we can start that very important work.

I want to end on a personal note. I am concerned about my grandchildren. I think about the dangers of the Internet, and I am not thinking only about porn but also other matters that the member for Winnipeg North raised as well: misinformation, disinformation, cyber-bullying and hatred, which is so easily spread around the world. We must all learn to discern such things, which is what we taught our kids and what they are teaching their children.

Bill S-210 is just another tool to get us there. I compare this to other laws that we have in place for keeping people safe. A good example is that we have laws against speeding in playground zones; yet, we tell our children to look both ways before they cross the street. We have laws against assault, but we tell our children not to walk down dark alleyways at night alone. This is just common sense. The law can only do so much.

This bill is a good framework for moving forward. It is the least we can do. We are on the home stretch. Let us bring it home.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill S‑210 would create an offence for organizations that make such content accessible. Obviously, we are motivated by the desire to better regulate sexually explicit material. Basically, what we want to do here is protect young people from a certain type of danger. When we seek to protect, we want to act proactively to prevent a certain event from happening, and the danger is being at the mercy of someone or something. We need to be very careful.

It is much easier then it used to be to gain access to pornography. I remember, when I was young, that people really had to be quite clever to find anything at all, and then it had to be hidden under the bed. I am not talking about myself, obviously, I am referring to others. Today, it is easy to get the material online. The web means everywhere and forever. It is very difficult to regulate online content.

In philosophy, it is said that in order to exist, an event must have two characteristics, space and time. Something takes place at a given time. We are used to thinking this way. Where and when? But the Internet is everywhere and forever. This makes it hard to control certain types of content or the businesses that provide it. Without space and time, nothing would exist. I used to ask the following question in discussions: What would happen to a bird in flight if there were neither space nor time? Most people answered that the bird would fall, but it would not, because there would be no time. These are basic building blocks of where we are.

When we talk about young people, we are talking about individuals who have not yet necessarily had an opportunity to develop judgment. They are very susceptible to various influences. They can easily form a false idea of the nature of sexuality, love and relationships, a distorted idea that could significantly shape their behaviour. This is a danger. As parliamentarians, no one here can be against preventing such a danger.

At the age when the concepts of love, sexuality, relationships and dating are still fluid, we have to be able to act preventively. There is a Creole saying I really like. It says, “the sun sleeps, but danger never does”.

That is why we must act. I will reiterate that all action is time sensitive. If we must act, we must do so now. Of course, as we send the bill on to the next step, there will be discussions about what form it might take, but we must never lose sight of its intent. The intent must remain, because it reflects the values underlying it. Values are elements that embody a certain vision of goodness, justice and injustice. They are values like respect. We all demand respect, but sometimes we do not bother to learn what it is. Respect is a second look we take at something or someone so as not to offend needlessly. There is then something here we have to think about now.

This said, I have a bit of a problem with the idea of “now”, because, if it is urgent, we have to act. Last Friday, we lost a parliamentary day to useless procedural tactics that delayed the hearing and potentially the implementation of such a bill. We were confronted with a shameful partisan stunt that twisted procedure for purposes other than those intended. This is called manipulation. Manipulation is to use something for other purposes, for one's own ends.

While we were voting, the people who forced the vote were forgetting that there was a danger. There was a danger, yet I am told that the party that forced the vote was okay with the danger.

In the bill, although it is not referred to explicitly, we can read between the lines and understand that self-regulation will not be an option. Of course, as far as the Internet is concerned, self-regulation is a fiction. In general, online companies, especially the ones that distribute pornography, are not at all trustworthy, and trust is a condition for self-regulation. Trust is the ability to rely on others without having to control everything. Self-regulation is therefore neither credible nor acceptable.

In conclusion, I will ask my colleagues to stop wasting time, something we are seeing a lot of, and bear in mind that every hour of time lost is an opportunity for something to go wrong. As I said, there is danger, there is a threat, there are young people involved whose minds are not yet fully formed. We have to act now.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to address the many different types of issues on the floor of the House, and today we do that through Bill S-210.

The title of the legislation, protecting young persons from exposure to pornography act, sends a fairly powerful message. There is absolutely no doubt about that. When I think about the community I represent and the experiences I have had as a parliamentarian over the years with regard to this very sensitive issue, I suggest that it goes beyond pornography. What we are really talking about is the safety of our children.

We all have serious concerns with how the Internet has evolved, with access to the Internet and with what our young people are seeing on the Internet. I believe there is an onus and responsibility on all of us in that respect, not only at the national level but also at the provincial level. Even in our school system, we all have a sense of responsibility, not to mention the parents and guardians of children. We all have a very important role in recognizing that which quite often causes harm to the minds of our children, either directly or indirectly, and the impact it has, putting a child on a specific course in life.

I do not say that lightly. When I look at the legislation and think of the intimate images on the Internet, all I need to do is look at some of the streaming services, whether it is Netflix, Crave or the many others out there. I suspect that if we were to apply what is being suggested in this legislation, it could prove to be somewhat problematic. I do not know to what degree the sponsor of the bill has thought through the legislation itself. The title is great. The concern is serious. We are all concerned about it. However, when I think of the impact that this has on our children, I believe it is not just through pornography. Cyber-bullying is very real. We often hear of very tragic stories where a young person is bullied through the Internet.

We need a holistic approach to what we can do as legislators to protect the best interests of children. In looking at the legislation, there seems to be a mix of criminal and administrative law. On the one hand we are saying it is illegal, giving the impression that criminal law needs to deal with it, yet there is an administrative penalty being applied if someone has fallen offside. I see that as a bit of an issue that needs to be resolved.

However, the biggest issue we need to look at is why the bill is fairly narrow in its application with respect to harms to children. I used the example of cyber-bullying. It seems to me that the department has been very proactive and busy on a number of fronts, whether it is with the online news legislation or other legislation. I know departments are currently in the process of looking at legislation to bring forward in the new year that would have a more holistic approach to dealing with things that impact or harm young people. I suspect that through the departments, with the amount of consultation that has been done and continues to be done on the issue, we will see more solid legislation being provided.

In the legislation being proposed, issues arise, such as concerns dealing with the Privacy Commissioner. It is easy for us to say we want to ensure that young people watching these programs are at the age of majority. It is a difficult thing to ultimately administer. I am not aware of a country that has been successful at doing so. I am not convinced that the legislation being proposed would be successful at doing that.

In terms of the age of majority, I was citing earlier today how things can be very easily manipulated, such as by using VPN technology, which I must say I am not familiar with. Someone could be at their house and could somehow change their location to give the perception that instead of being in one community or neighbourhood, they are someplace thousands of miles away. There is also the whole idea of using identification that is not necessarily theirs. I will cite the example of teenagers being among friends when it comes time to get alcohol. False identification is often used or encouraged in certain areas by teenagers to acquire alcohol. To believe that there would not be any manipulation of the system would be wrong. Imagine a person getting information that then gets submitted as data points for a company and how harmful misinformation would be to the individual who has that identification.

To what degree has this legislation been worked on with the Privacy Commissioner? I suspect that the Privacy Commissioner might have something to say about the legislation. The difficulty that I have is in the name, Bill S-210, protecting young persons from exposure to pornography act. I believe that each and every one of us here today would understand that pornography for minors is not a good thing. It does have an impact.

I remember taking a course in sociology many years ago at university, and a test group was put to the side. One part of the test group had to watch hours and hours of pornography, and in the other group it did not occur. The groups were then brought together and the consequence was striking. The group that watched pornography was more open, to the degree that they did not think certain offences and the inappropriate treatment between sexual partners were all that bad.

This has an impact in a very real way. I understand the concern, but we should be broadening the concern to include things like cyber-bullying. We need to leave it to the department to bring forward more comprehensive and substantive legislation that would take out some of the conflicts and deal with issues from the Privacy Commissioner. It would ultimately be better for all of us.

The House resumed from November 23 consideration of the motion that Bill S-210, An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Pornography

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I present a petition from residents of Canada who are concerned about young people being exposed to sexually explicit material and the harms associated with that.

The petitioners recognize that online age verification technology is increasingly sophisticated and can now effectively ascertain the age of users without breaching their privacy rights. Knowing that was one of the primary recommendations made by stakeholders during a 2017 study by the Standing Committee on Health, the petitioners are calling upon the House of Commons to adopt Bill S-210, the protecting young persons from exposure to pornography act.

Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Act

[Dominique Vien, Conservative, Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to speak. I am in a good mood because, so far, we have heard speeches from colleagues from various political parties who have decided to support Bill S-210, an act to restrict young persons' online access to sexually explicit material.

It is important to mention that the sponsor of this bill is Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne, who is very well known in Quebec. She is a former Radio-Canada journalist who had a lot of credibility in that profession, just as she still does today.

I am pleased to speak today because Saturday, November 25 is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. Unfortunately, we know that violence against women and girls still exists around the world. The UN is calling on us to show how much we care about violence against women on November 25.

First of all, I would like to point out that none of my colleagues in the House wants to pass judgment on pornography, whether to support or oppose it. That is not the point. That is not what Bill S‑210 is about. Many of us are parents. Many of us are now grandparents. What matters to us as parliamentarians is protecting the mental health of young people by limiting their access to sexually explicit material. What we also want, and what most of our colleagues have said, is to dissuade all organizations that make sexually explicit material available on the Internet for commercial purposes from allowing young people to access that material. We really need to have some means of verification before users enter these site, in order to have screen out our young people and protect them.

Why are we doing this? Let me put this into context. I will read out some information and statistics that will give my colleagues a better idea of how easy it is for young people under the age of 18 to access pornography.

There are nearly 4.5 million pornography sites around the world. Most operate on the model of content uploaded by individuals, completely for free and with no access restrictions. We know that our young people are very adept at using the Internet, much more so than many of my colleagues. Young people are knowledgeable, they are agile, and they are far more interested in technology. Knowing how adept young people are at using the Internet, we should not be surprised at how easy it is for them to get into pornography sites. Of course they know more than their parents.

In 2021, pornography sites got more traffic in the United States than Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, Netflix, Pinterest and Zoom combined. Studies show that most young people are exposed to pornography starting at age 13. More than half of these minors see explicit sexual material without even wanting to. That is exactly what we heard earlier from my colleague from Elgin—Middlesex—London, who, I would remind the House, is also the sponsor of this bill. There is a false sense of security.

Research commissioned by the British Board of Film Classification revealed a discrepancy between parents' views and what children were actually experiencing. Three-quarters of parents, or 75%, felt that their child would not have seen pornography online, but more than half of their children, or 53%, said they had in fact seen it. This shows that we cannot simply fall back on parental supervision or rely exclusively on parental responsibility. We have to go one step further and push a little harder, because parents are living with a false sense of security, as these statistics show.

On average, children have their first encounter with pornography at age 11. Here in Canada, 40% of high school boys have seen pornography online, 28% seek it out at least once a day or once a week, and 7% of girls also watch it. According to the National Centre on Sexual Exploitation, 87% of scenes in pornography depict acts of violence against women. That is a lot of figures and a lot of information, but I think that we need them to do our work and to understand the issue properly, because it is so important. Here is some more information, and I quote:

Scientific research is making more and more worrisome connections between the consumption of pornography and the health or behaviour of young people. When adolescents frequently view pornography, it can lead to compulsive consumption, create unrealistic expectations about expected activities, generate fear and anxiety, damage their self-esteem by distorting their perception of their own bodies, cause symptoms of depression and impair social functioning.

What do young people, boys in particular, absorb from what they see? Repeated consumption of pornography by adolescents reinforces gender stereotypes and perpetuates sexist beliefs and the objectification of women.

I want to take this issue a little further. Pornography is not reality. Pornography contains a lot of violence. As I said, 87% of pornographic scenes depict acts of violence. Boys who view pornography see behaviour that they will consider to be normal. Teenagers or young people may want to copy some of those behaviours because that is what they have as a model, these gender stereotypes. Everyone here knows very well that that is not reality. I do not think that I have time to give some of the quotes from experts that I wanted to share with the House, but I think that my colleagues have already talked a lot about that.

This week, the newspaper La Presse published a very interesting series of articles about a paradigm shift in what boys think of girls. Right now, there is a trend of sorts happening that is being led by a very influential and important man who is very present on the Internet. He is the subject of one of the articles in that series, entitled “Becoming a fan of Andrew Tate at age 15”. This man, Andrew Tate, is spreading a negative image of women and girls. He says that a woman's place is in the kitchen and that women should not be working. He says that, even if women do work outside the home, they are not smart enough or talented enough to do so.

I read that this week in La Presse and I took it as a warning. It is high time that the House of Commons supported a bill like the one before us today to protect our young people when they go on the Internet, to block their access to pornography and to ensure that companies conduct age verification checks as they should.

The bill is sure to be referred to a parliamentary committee. The format and process remain to be determined. I have neither the skills nor the knowledge today to say what process should be chosen, but I think we have reached the point where this is necessary, and we need to take care of our young people.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise today to speak to Bill S-210, an act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material. As we know, the bill is intended to protect children from access to sexually explicit materials. This is a very important bill, and I am happy we are speaking to it today.

One thing I want to address from the outset is that an important consideration of this bill is not only ensuring that we look at protecting children from access to sexually explicit material, but also ensuring that mechanisms are in place to protect the personal information of Canadians when developing what is required to protect children. Witnesses testified at the Senate on this exact issue, speaking in favour of using a responsible third party service provider, as an example, to conduct age verification rather than sites. Many Canadians, of course rightly so, do not want their personal information to be provided to those who are seeking profit, so we need a responsible third party provider.

I want to quote Kevin Honeycutt, an educator. He said, “Kids are growing up in a digital playground and no one is on recess duty.” I thought that was a really powerful way to show what is happening online right now. I am a former educator who worked in the school system, and I can say there are always many eyes on the playground to ensure that children are playing respectfully with one another and to identify any concerns. Now we have children accessing online content without any such supervision and it is highly problematic.

Kerri Isham is a constituent in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith. She is an educator, author and award-winning presenter with 25 years of experience in the field of sexual health education. She is also the founder of a company called Power Up Education. I wanted to bring her up because she has dedicated her professional career to the safety of children and responding to the needs of communities. I want to highlight the work of people like Kerri Isham and so many across our country who are working tirelessly to make sure that children and youth have access to the education they need around sexual health.

Kerri Isham was so kind to provide me with the wealth of information she uses when she is in the community and in our schools educating parents and children on the importance of not only having the appropriate information and safety mechanisms in place around online access, but also having the information and tools needed to know what it looks like to be safe among this wealth of information.

One interesting point Kerri Isham pointed out to me is that 30% of all Internet traffic is pornography-related. That is a huge number. Tragically, 10% of visitors to pornography sites are under the age of 10. I found it interesting to hear my colleague talk earlier about whether the people accessing it intended to or not. A large portion of people are accessing these sites from a very young age. The average age when boys first view pornography is nine years old, so at nine, boys are seeing this information online. This content is made for adults, not children.

Pornography is shaping sexual imaginations, expectations and practices. It is designed for what is called “adult fantasy”, which is an abstract concept. Teens are concrete learners at a stage of development when they are learning and when their brain is in a much different state. When they watch pornography, they are learning that this is what sex should look like, which is highly problematic. We know that what pornography often showcases is not at all what a healthy sexual relationship looks like, and our children are learning through pornography that this is the way a healthy sexual relationship should look. It is not realistic what children are seeing, and they need to be presented with healthy images and access to the information they need.

We know that pornography has steadily increased. There is violent pornography, horror pornography, child pornography and racist pornography. We are seeing an increase in pornography that, tragically, supports or promotes racial inequality and an increase in revenge pornography, which too many youth right now are experiencing and seeing the impacts of. Misogyny is deeply embedded in so much of what we are seeing, with violence against women, and many are profiting from abuse through the pornography available. The National Child Exploitation Crime Centre, in 2020-21, received 52,306 complaints, which represents a 510% increase from 2013-14. That is a huge increase.

Neurologists have found that brain activity among heavy pornography users showed a behavioural addiction similar to what we would see in substance and gambling addictions. The study, which was conducted in 2017, showed that similar brain activity was present in people who are heavy pornography users, which is highly problematic.

Dr. Megan Harrison, with the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, testified before the Senate legal committee that developing brains are affected by images it sees. The process is called neuroplasticity, which is something many of us are familiar with. However, to ensure we are all on the same page, I will note that it is the forming of new neural networks and pathways when the brain is optimizing itself. That is probably not the best descriptor, but the point is that through neuroplasticity, when the brain sees pornography repeatedly, it adjusts and determines that this is normal content to see. The exposure of pornography can create a distorted view of sexuality that can damage children's and teens' understanding of sexual relationships and their self-image as they mature.

The result of the excess viewing of pornography, which is often misogynistic and violent, is an increase in violence against women, one of the many symptoms. Violence against women is a global public health crisis, and pornography contributes to cultural conditions in which violence against women is tolerated, acceptable and even desirable. It unfortunately creates a sense of entitlement to have sex at any time, in any way, with whomever a person wished, and it regularly depicts sexualized aggression toward women. We know that 44% of women have experienced abuse from a partner in Canada. This is a statistic from 2018, and we know that these numbers have increased since then.

I want to highlight the work of my colleague, the member for Victoria, who recently brought forward a private member's bill, Bill C-332, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding controlling or coercive conduct. This work was carried on by the member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke. The reason we are seeing support in the House for this bill to move forward is that we know, given the science surrounding the development of adolescent brains, graphic sexual images and how they affect an adolescent's understanding of sexual relationships when they are older, that protections and preventions need to be in place from the outset. Instead of us having to create bills that would criminalize behaviour of controlling, coercive and abusive behaviour, I would like us to put in place more preventive tools to ensure that children are accessing appropriate, healthy information from the outset.

We know that key to this work, in addition to having mechanisms in place to control online access to pornography, is prevention so that we do not always have to react to abusive and coercive behaviour after it happens. Sexual health education promotes, among other things, consent, safety and respect, both for ourselves and within our relationships.

Overall, I am happy to support this bill and clearly have a lot to say on it. I hope it gets through committee quickly, as we have a lot of information and want to see it move forward.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S‑210. Before I begin, I would like to say that the Bloc Québécois supports this bill. We are in favour of it being studied at committee so that we can have a more in-depth discussion to ensure that we protect minors, which is a major public safety challenge. The Bloc Québécois's position is consistent with initiatives to strengthen protection of the public, particularly for minors.

Introduced by Julie Miville‑Dechêne, the independent senator with whom I co-chair the All-Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking, Bill S‑210 seeks to put in place safeguards to restrict minors' access to sexually explicit material on the Internet. I will begin with an overview of the issue, then I will further explain the Bloc Québécois's position, and finally I will close with examples of other support for Bill S‑210.

First, let us note that making sexually explicit material available to minors for commercial purposes is a criminal offence punishable by a fine of up to $250,000. This makes it a criminal offence for organizations to make this type of content available to young people. The term “organization” echoes the definition in section 2 of the Criminal Code. Furthermore, the Federal Court could order that websites contravening the law be blocked. The definition of “organization” includes any public body, body corporate, society, company, firm, partnership or association of persons that is created for a common purpose, has an operational structure and holds itself out to the public as an association of persons. This makes it possible to directly target commercial pornography distributors.

The bill is motivated by a concern to better supervise access to sexually explicit material online, as age verification is currently limited to a simple declaration. Under Bill S‑210, pornographic sites will be required to verify the age of their users. The bill essentially replicates Bill S‑203, which was sponsored by the same senator. That bill died on the Order Paper at the end of the 43rd Parliament, and now the senator is trying again.

The digital landscape our young people have grown up with makes it easy to view degrading and even extreme content that normalizes the objectification of women and dominant relationships. This type of video and image content is available on platforms owned by companies that do not fulfill any meaningful requirement to ensure that the people viewing it are adults. It would be unrealistic to entrust companies that disseminate pornographic content with verifying the age of the individuals accessing it. Bill S‑210 would assign that responsibility to a third party, an intermediary designated by regulations.

With the emergence of computer technology that enables parties to disseminate and access sexually explicit content, the government has a responsibility to prevent minors from accessing it, as much as possible. Given the obscene nature of this material and the harmful impact on young people's brain development, things cannot be kept in check by self-regulation alone. Bill S‑210 lays out broad principles for verifying the age of people accessing pornographic content in order to prevent those under 18 from accessing it. Once this bill is passed, it will provide authority to make regulations prescribing the specific methods to achieve that.

Bill S-210 will also have consequences for pornographic sites, whether hosted on Canadian soil or not, that might contravene it. The government will be able to block sites that fail to comply with future regulations on age verification. Let us not forget that the minimum age to view pornographic films is 18.

Obviously, I am not a magician and I do not have a magic wand. No one can ignore the fact that this bill is not a silver bullet. A minor who wants to view pornography illegally could resort to circumvention methods like virtual private networks and so on to get around the age validation mechanisms. I remain realistic and I am not naive. However, even if Bill S-210 does not turn out to be the silver bullet that completely eradicates this scourge, there is a good chance that it will have beneficial effects and further restrict access for minors. In that respect, the objective will be met.

Second, I would like to remind the House that the Bloc Québécois will always support measures that seek to protect the public and promote a healthy lifestyle. Bill S-210 responds to a real concern in our communities. The Bloc Québécois reacted when disturbing revelations were made about MindGeek's Internet Pornhub, which is one of the most popular pornographic sites in Canada and well-known in Quebec, since the company is based in Montreal. We knew that data was being collected on the most popular video categories, common themes in video titles and the best-known actors in the adult film industry. While the United States held an inquiry and other parts of the world, including Europe, are considering this issue and taking action, Canada has been slow to act.

There is data confirming that access to explicit material is harmful if it ends up in the hands of minors, particularly young girls. With femicide and violence against women on the rise, our society has a duty to restrict access—to the greatest extent possible—to explicit content that is said to promote such violence.

In fact, we are just a few days away from the sad commemoration of the Polytechnique femicide, which occurred on December 6, 1989. I recently heard on the radio that there are still people today who worship Marc Lépine and wish women dead. It is chilling. Misogyny still exists. Keep in mind that many cities are passing motions to declare gender-based violence an epidemic and to pressure legislators to act on it within their respective jurisdictions.

Third, other groups also support this bill. Many stakeholders and civil society groups, including the Association des pédiatres du Québec, support the initiative embodied by Bill S-210. Allowing young minors to be exposed to pornography has consequences. Viewing pornography early in life has extremely negative effects, including the inability to develop healthy relationships. These young people can also develop a misconception that women and girls are sexual objects, available for sex 24-7, with no consent required. Worse still, it can create a dependency on pornography. In some cases, this can even lead to financial problems that can ruin lives, because pornography is not free. In fact, the industry is highly lucrative.

This proposal therefore crosses party lines and will likely receive support from all political parties represented in the House of Commons. This is no trivial matter.

It is also important to know that the Standing Committee on the Status of Women is currently studying the trafficking of women, girls and gender-diverse people. Although we may not be able to comment yet on the committee's eventual findings, many stakeholders pointed out in their briefs that human trafficking is closely linked to pornography and the coercive relationships that pimps maintain with their victims in order to get them to perform sex acts.

In the studies that follow our committee, from the study on intimate partner violence to the one on change of culture in sport, the concept of educating young men and women constantly comes up when we talk about preventing all forms of violence. In particular, this includes the need to offer an education on healthy sexuality.

For young girls, mental health problems are exacerbated by the pressure they feel from seeing manipulated, even degrading, images of the female body and sexuality that are projected by pornography. They may even end up being subjected to unwanted sexual acts that are dangerous to their health and unsafe for their body. By its very nature, Bill S‑210 will help curb the dissemination of pornography on the Internet and protect the victims from the humiliating exposure of illegal material.

The bill will make organizations accountable and subject them to a new offence if they make such content available. This will give victims an additional tool to help them reclaim their dignity and punish their abusers. We have also been hearing that young women are often filmed without their knowledge and that those images are being posted when the young women are not even aware that they have been filmed. It is really worrisome to see so many images that were taken without consent being freely shared on the Internet.

In closing, Bill S-210 is important to create tools to ensure that women, children and girls are protected from the negative effects of early exposure to pornographic images online. As a new mother, I must admit that I worry about the future of my daughter, and I truly hope that, unlike me, she will never have to say “me too”. We need to do something about the femicides that the Secretary General of the United Nations described as a shadow pandemic. This problem was exacerbated by overexposure to the Internet during the pandemic. It created all sorts of problems, including these ones. We need to take action so that we can say collectively, “not one more”.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the bill's sponsor in the House, the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London, for bringing this important issue to the floor. The bill we are discussing today is closely linked to the government's ongoing work to ensure a safer online experience for all Canadians, particularly children and youth. It is also worth noting that we need to work together to ensure that Canadians' freedom of expression and right to privacy are protected. This is a complex conversation, and we are all trying to find the appropriate balance with regard to these protections.

It may sound trite, but we are all acutely aware that the world is interconnected as never before. Society as a whole and individuals are constantly influenced by the content they see on the Internet. Reliable access to the Internet is so important that, in many areas, it is considered a human right. That is how fundamental it is to our daily lives and our interactions with the rest of the world.

Thanks to various platforms and other tools available to the public, we can access services online, participate in community events, access information, express opinions and just have fun. This is how many of us participate in community life. Online content is also a priceless educational resource that enables lifelong learning, engagement and personal and social development.

Let us be clear, though: The digital world has grown, and it is self-regulated. That has raised many new challenges that call for serious debate. Surfing the Internet can expose users to potentially harmful content that may not be suitable for children and youth. Young Canadians need adequate protection from online content so their experience can be as safe as possible and so they can take full advantage of the benefits of digital platforms. We see that a lot.

In our interconnected society, we know that ongoing efforts must be made to ensure that children and youth do not have access to online pornography. Bill S‑210 recognizes this challenge and addresses this important public policy issue. As a government, we have a responsibility to ensure that our children can safely browse online and do not have unlimited access to inappropriate content. At the same time, we must be aware of the need to strike a healthy balance by ensuring that the solutions are effective and minimize unintended consequences. Respect for human rights, including the right to privacy and freedom of expression, while guaranteeing adequate protections, resources and recourse for those exposed to harmful content, should be paramount in our considerations.

Let me be clear. Creating a safer online environment for Canadians is a key priority for our government. That is why we committed to introducing legislation to combat online harm and to hold social media platforms and other online services accountable for content that causes harm. As part of the development of an online safety act, the government undertook extensive consultations that began in 2021 in order to better understand the concerns of Canadians. We are committed to taking action on this fundamental issue, and we welcome stakeholder engagement in this important debate.

In the summer of 2021, the government sought public input on an initial proposal to combat harmful content online. Canadians told us they wanted platforms to be held accountable for the content they promote. They also shared their concerns about freedom of expression, proactive monitoring and the risk of platforms removing legal and legitimate content in order to avoid potential sanctions. Following our initial consultations and the important information we were given, we went back to the drawing board.

We want to hear from Canadians and experts on this to ensure that the legislation will protect children and young people, that it will support the victims of online harm and reduce the harm that may have unintended consequences, including that which affects racialized and ethnocultural communities, the 2SLGBTQIA+ community, indigenous peoples and victims of harm such as the sexual exploitation of children.

Over the past year, we have gathered more information on what might be an effective and productive legislative framework. The first step consisted in creating an expert panel on online safety made up of experts and practitioners from various backgrounds. They made important comments on the initial approaches and the improvements that are being made.

Then, the government expanded its consultations among Canadians. During summer and fall 2022, the government organized a series of roundtables across Canada to hear directly from citizens, victims groups and organizations that support them, indigenous peoples and industry. We heard from one group of citizens, whose members were chosen at random, who represented the general public and who spent years gathering information and reflecting on these types of issues.

In all of these phases, there was a clear consensus on the specific need to protect children online. They are extremely vulnerable online, and it is clear that the government needs to look at the big picture. Similarly, the dialogue must include members of various communities, business leaders and elected officials to find the best solutions and the best response.

Online content poses many challenges for parents and children. Children are spending more and more time online, and we need to recognize that that also increases the risk that young Canadians will be exposed to harmful content. The government heard the testimony of victims of harassment, bullying and other forms of hateful content. Many participants were worried about the impact that exposure to such content can have on children's mental health, self-image and personal and social development.

The impact of this harm is not limited to the online environment. One thing that we kept hearing at our interviews and meetings is that online harm can have consequences in the real world. Every aspect of a child's life is affected when they are the victim of online sexual exploitation. Online harm has real-life consequences.

Another important consideration that we also heard about is that overly rigid and specific measures can have unintended consequences, and that ways to correct this situation, although perhaps imperfect, already exist.

We heard that Canadians want their children to be protected, but they are also wary about invasions of their privacy. Canadians have very little trust in the ability of the web giants to manage their information and private data. They are also fearful of bad actors who could get around the rules and deliberately violate their privacy or breach their data security. Furthermore, online content controls that limit access to selected and harmful content are built into the software that run our many electronic devices, including smart phones, tablets and personal computers.

Clearly, it is essential that we move on this. Our government has committed to moving forward. As the government drafts legislation, protecting children and making platforms accountable remain central to our approach. We recognize that this is a complex issue and that we must strive to strike a balance between respect for privacy rights, freedom of expression and the need for adequate protection against content, including and especially for children, youth and other vulnerable individuals.

Protecting Canadians is a complex and important issue. It is essential that we get there.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think our colleague knows that we support Bill S‑210. That being said, I have two questions.

First of all, control seems harder today because servers can be installed almost anywhere. That seems to be making it more challenging to impose laws within a set of borders on anything Internet-related. I would like to ask my colleague to say a few words on that topic.

My other question is this: Why did it take so long? The MindGeek case was in Montreal.

Why did it take so long to introduce this bill and start discussing it here, in the House?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

moved that Bill S-210, An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, it is truly an honour to rise in the House and talk about such an important bill.

Bill S-210 is the protecting young persons from exposure to pornography act. This bill would restrict young persons' online access to sexually explicit material.

Tonight I am honoured to speak to this bill. We have talked about pornography in this place before, and we recognize the impact of pornography, the impact on our youth, and why it is important that we sit down and actually talk about this.

I want to talk about why we need to do this. A lot has to do with unintentional viewing of pornography by our youth. We are here today to talk about what we can put in place to ensure that when our children are turning on their laptops, when they are looking at videos that the next thing that comes on is not pornography, that it is not something that is sexually explicit.

I recall, back in the 42nd Parliament, having the opportunity to speak to Motion No. 47, which looked at pornography. That was studied at committee. I spoke to Motion No. 47 because I had had my own experience with my son. It was following a commercial that I had watched on an Air Canada flight. I shared this story back in 2016-17, but I think it is worth sharing again. It has a lot to do with something so simple turning into something so wrong.

It started off with a simple underwear commercial on an Air Canada flight. As I was flying home, I watched a commercial with two men talking to one another about how cosy they were and how life was so good. Then it zoomed back, and it is two men talking inside a pair of underwear. They represented testicles. To me, that is just what it is. They were talking about how comfortable they were. To me, it was not pornographic, and it was not sexually exploitive. It was just a really great way of selling a pair of underwear.

I thought I would show my son and my husband. At home I turned on the TV and went to one of the sites. After showing my family this video that I thought was so hilarious, it turned into soft porn. That is when I personally subjected my own child to it, without knowing. That is me as an adult user, and please do not hold that against me.

We have to look at how simple something like this could happen. It happened to me as a mom, and we know that it happens to children. Sixty-three per cent of children who have seen pornography reported that their first encounter with pornography was unintentional. Sixty-three per cent. Why is that important?

It is important because of what pornography does to a child. They looked at what the issue was. It was children having access to pornography. When surveyed, 83% of parents have suggested there should be robust age verification. That is why I am going to put on my status of women's hat now.

I have had the honour of working on really important files since 2015, working with the status of women, working as the shadow minister for women and gender equality. I understand the correlation between pornography and sexually violent acts.

A lot has to do with understanding that 41% of these children who have seen pornography have indicated that it has had a negative impact on their own relationships and their views of the opposite sex. We know that when it comes to misogyny, patriarchy and sexual violence, a lot of it is a power imbalance. That is exactly what we see in pornography.

What children are seeing is something that is not reality. Instead, they are seeing something very fictitious, very fantasy-like. With their level of maturity and processing the information in their brains, it becomes a reality. In time, they find that this sexualness, the things that they do become okay. It becomes normalized. These are things that we should really care about.

I watched an incredible documentary called Over 18. We also saw it here. It focused on a young boy, and different things about a family that was dealing with a child and other children who had come into contact with pornography. In the documentary, it was showing this young boy. The parents talked about the fact that they were sitting in the same room while he was watching pornography. Children become addicted to this kind of stuff. We know what happens with addiction, what happens to the brain. We have to know what happens when we are dealing with young children and when their brain development is being messed up.

Eighty-seven per cent of the scenes that people see in pornography are scenes of violence against women. I am not saying anything about pornography and what we should do about adults. I am talking about children and the fact is that what children would see is 87% of these acts are ones of violence against women. This is the stuff that is going into these kids' brains. Is this what our children deserve and need?

According to many researchers and studies, children and adolescents may become more vulnerable to the effects of pornographic content. In turn, with their lack of experience and development, they develop an idea of what sex is. It becomes inappropriate, violent and selfish. Women are considered tools for men's pleasure. Pornography provides violent aggression, where they believe that this becomes acceptable. Pornography becomes a role model which leads to unhealthy relationships.

When we talk about violence against women, one of the biggest things we talk about is prevention, so let us start young. Why are we not starting with our young children? We should ensure from the time they are young that they understand consent. Things like pornography should not be put into their brains until they are adults, when they can make right decisions and right choices and understand relationships and understand who to touch, when to touch, how to touch and understand that consent. Pornography does none of this. It is not something that we can say is a way of sexually educating our children. It is a way of educating our children to something that is extremely dismissive of women.

This leads into teen dating. This is where we are talking about a child who watches this information and then we have to see what happens. How do they process that information? How do they react in their relationships? There have been so many studies done on teen dating showing the correlation between pornography and violence and specifically young women who are being forced into sexual acts. It leads to unsafe sex. We know there is this obsession with sexual fantasy and aggressive behaviour. Unfortunately, young women become victims of those acts.

Pornography, once again, is not sex education. It does not provide real-life sexual experience on relationships. That is why it is so important that our children should not see this by accident.

I want to read from a passage which has the heading, “Pornography and Its Impact on Sexual Activities and Overall Behaviour”. The authors state:

Pornography use and aggressive behavior in the classroom was found to be significantly correlated, with higher consumption levels being associated with more aggressive behavior. Exposure at a younger age makes individuals receptive to watching coercive or violent porn. Watching more hardcore pornography containing abuse, rape, and child sex is associated with the normalizing of this behaviors. Exposure to sexually explicit content has a strong influence on adolescents’ sexually permissive attitudes.

Over time, the embarrassment that may follow from having a pornographic interest or engaging in pornographic behaviors may internalize itself, resulting in a decline in mental health and general life satisfaction. Pornography can excite the brain’s reward system, which can lead to severe brain alterations akin to those found in drug addictions. Compulsive sexual behaviors are also linked to early pornography exposure. By showing an absence of emotional connection between consensual couples, unprotected sexual contact, and, occasionally, violence and rape, pornography normalizes sexual harm. Male adolescents may learn that it is okay and even desired to act violently and aggressively toward and degrade their female partners from the aggressive and violent depictions of women that are prevalent in much of today’s popular pornography.

I read this because it is something that we all have to be aware of. We hear of sexual violence all the time. There are statistics and I wish I could provide an exact statistic, but it is in the range of a 70% to 80% increase in sexual violence. We need to do something about this. Prevention is one piece and this is what this bill would do. It works on prevention. It is just one of the multiple tools that we can use.

An article from the National Centre on Sexual Exploitation states, “Aggressive acts against women in pornography occur in roughly 87% of the scenes”. This is something I brought up earlier. It goes on to say, “Pornography acts as a form of sexual education, teaching the lesson that female sexual partners ought to enjoy physical acts such as hitting, gagging, slapping, or non-consensual sex.”

I do not think there is a single member of Parliament who would agree that is what we want for Canadian children. That is why I am here today to say it to everybody, and to ask for their support of this really important bill.

Now I will actually get into the bill. I have talked about why we need this bill, but what is the bill? I will let the member for Avalon know that I am about to fill him in.

This bill ensures we have age verification. We already know that some countries are using this. Germany, France and the U.K. are three that I can cite. There are also a number of states that are putting in these types of age verifications. In Germany, there are three different ways to do this with, I think, 100 different providers.

There are all these incredible things we can do. Technology will lead our way. We know that, with age verification, we need to ensure that privacy is protected. When using a third party provider to verify, for privacy reasons, we need to ensure that information is not passed on. There are a multitude of ISP providers or third party providers that can provide this type of verification. It is all about the safety of our children. It is about the safety of their brains and their development and, in turn, having healthy relationships.

In Germany, as I said, there is some great work being done. In France, they have also passed different pieces of legislation. Some of the principles put in place there are in order to reconcile the protection of privacy and youth protection through the implementation of online age verification systems for pornographic sites. They take into account certain details. I want to put this in here too because, for many people, privacy is probably what they are most concerned about. I think everybody understands saying no to pornography and children; however, privacy is sometimes what we have to look at.

We must focus on some principles when we are talking about how we ensure that age verification can be done. There should be no direct collection of identity documentation by the site publisher from the pornographic site, no age estimates based on the user's web browser history and no processing of biometric data for the purpose of uniquely identifying or authenticating a natural person. There are all sorts of different things that can be done.

I think if we look at technology today, we can even look at the fact that, when COVID came, in March 2020, we were all online and using Zoom within weeks. This is all about technology. There are people out there who can do this work. I am asking everybody to get onside so that people will be able to do it.

I have more in here, but I think what I want to do is end it off with a very simple piece on how this started in the United States. This is really important. I do not know if everyone knows who Billie Eilish is in here, but I am sure anyone under the age of 30 has probably listened to a Billie Eilish song. All I know is that she is a Grammy award-winning person who has some blue hair once in a while, but she has spoken the truth. What I really appreciate is that she has talked about her own experience. This reads, “It was December 2021 and Schlegel was on her ‘daily news scroll’ through Apple news when she saw an article describing popstar Billie Eilish's appearance on the infamous shock jock's show.” That was the Howard Stern Show that she had appeared on. Eilish told Stern, “I used to watch a lot of porn, to be honest. I started watching porn when I was like 11.... I think it really destroyed my brain and I feel incredibly devastated that I was exposed to porn so early.”

This is important, because we are just talking about a normal individual, somebody who so many young people can relate to. So many people look at somebody like Billie Eilish and wonder about what that young woman has done with her life. What an incredible artist. These are her words. When we look at mentorship, I think that we should, as parliamentarians, think of the words of Billie Eilish and support this legislation, so we can ensure our children are safe.

Pornography

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present today.

The first one is from Canadians from across the country who are concerned about how easy it is for young people to access sexually explicit material online, including violent and degrading explicit material. They comment how this access is an important public health and safety concern.

Petitioners also note that in an era in which we say we do not want violence against women, there are serious harms that come from this sexually explicit material including the development of attitudes favourable to the harassment of women and sexual violence. As such, the petitioners are calling on the House of Commons and the government to pass Bill S-210 quickly and forthright.

The second petition comes from Canadians from across the country who are concerned about the age and consent verification of those depicted in pornographic material.

The petitioners are asking the government to follow recommendation 2 from the 2021 Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics report on MindGeek, which would require that all content-hosting platforms in Canada verify age and consent prior to the uploading of content.

Bill C-270, the stopping Internet sexual exploitation act, would add two offences to the Criminal Code. The first would require age verification and consent prior to distribution. The second would require the removal of that material if consent is withdrawn. As such, the petitioners are calling on the House of Commons and the Government of Canada to pass Bill C-270 to stop Internet sexual exploitation.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the next petition I present today comes from Canadians from across the country who are concerned about how easy it is for young people to access sexually explicit material online, including violent and degrading material. They comment that this access is an important health and public safety concern.

The petitioners note that a significant portion of commercially accessible sexually explicit material has no age verification software, which could ascertain the age of the user without a breach of their privacy rights. The petitioners also note the many serious harms associated with this kind of material, including the development of addiction, along with the development of attitudes favourable to sexual violence and the harassment of women.

As such, the folks who have signed this petition are calling on the House of Commons to pass Bill S-210, the protecting young persons from exposure to pornography act.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the petitioners who signed this petition are concerned about the ease of access to online sexually explicit material, including violent and degrading material. They are concerned that this is a public health crisis and a public safety concern. Petitioners note that a significant portion of commercially accessible sexual material has no age-verification software in place. Petitioners note that many serious harms associated with access to this type of material include favourable attitudes toward sexual violence and the harassment of women.

As such, the petitioners are calling for the quick passage of Bill S-210, the protecting young persons from exposure to pornography act.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, the next petition is from petitioners across the country who are concerned about how easy it is for young people to access sexually explicit material online, including violent and degrading sexually explicit material. The petitioners comment on how this is an important public health and public safety concern.

Petitioners note the significant proportion of commercially accessed sexually explicit material has no age verification software. Moreover, age verification software can ascertain users without breaching their privacy rights. Petitioners note many serious harms associated with sexually explicit material, including the development of addiction, the development of attitudes favourable to sexual violence and harassment of women.

As such, the petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada and the House to pass Bill S-210, the protecting young persons from exposure to pornography act.

Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 91.1, a private member's item may only be considered by the House after a final decision on the votable status of the item has been made.

Although Bill S-210, an act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material, is scheduled for debate in the House today, no report on the votable status of the bill has been presented and concurred in, as is required before the bill can be debated.

I am therefore directing the table officer to drop this item of business to the bottom of the order of precedence. Accordingly, private members' hour is suspended today.

(Order discharged and bill withdrawn)

Accordingly, it being 1:31, the House stands adjourned until Tuesday, October 3 at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 28(1) and 24(1).

Thank you, everybody. I wish you a great weekend.

(The House adjourned at 1:31 p.m.)

Online Pornography

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of the Liberal government, Traffickinghub continues to operate with impunity. New undercover videos confirm that MindGeek continues to profit off these videos of CSAM, sex trafficking and rape. This is what survivors have said all along. The Canadian company is facing nine lawsuits with 195 victims, and these courageous survivors tell me that their fight continues to take these videos down off of MindGeek websites.

I raised this issue over four year ago. In 2020, The New York Times embarrassed the Liberals into acknowledging it. The ethics committee has made over 14 unanimous recommendations, and MPs from all parties have spoken out. The Liberal response has been nothing: no legislation and no justice for survivors. MindGeek's response was to bring on Liberals on their board and change their name. Even Germany is banning MindGeek to protect its kids.

Conservatives have common sense solutions such as Bill S-210 and Bill C-270. Survivors need justice. It is time to bring it home.

Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Act

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

moved that Bill S-210, An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material, be read the first time.

I am here with my colleague from Peace River—Westlock putting forward this very important piece of legislation that focuses on protecting children and restricting them from access to pornography, recognizing the impact on women and other persons of exposing youth to sexually explicit material and violence and deterring the organizations that make this type of material available on the Internet.

We must all work together to ensure that our children are safe. This is just one option for doing so.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

Fighting Against Forced Labour and Child Labour in Supply Chains Act

[Ted Falk, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

Madam Speaker, it is nice to rise in the House to speak to a bill that comes to us from our colleagues in the Senate, where there is general agreement among the parties that there needs to be action taken on this issue. After listening to some of the speeches earlier today, it does not sound as though there is going to be unanimous support in the House for this bill, but I think there will be enough to get it across the finish line.

I am a father of three and a grandfather of 10 children, some of whom may even be watching today. The issues related to children are very important to me today, as I think they are to all of us in the House. I am pleased to have the opportunity to share my thoughts on this bill, which our friends in the Senate have put before us.

I want to thank Senator Miville-Dechêne for presenting this bill, as well as Bill S-210, which I am also very strongly in favour of. The latter is a bill that calls for age-verification methods to be implemented to protect children from online pornography, another type of exploitation. It passed the Senate last week and I hope we will be debating it in the House very soon.

UNICEF, in its 2021 report, showed that the number of children involved in child labour had risen to 160 million worldwide, an increase of 8.4 million over the preceding four years, the first significant increase in this generation. The most significant jump was for kids aged five to 11, and the number of children doing hazardous work rose from 6.5 million to 79 million between 2016 and 2020. Again, those numbers are from UNICEF.

We know who the culprits are. We know which corporate entities are utilizing child labour, and we know about the children in Congo getting sent down mines to bring up the cobalt so that we here in Canada can have the latest device or drive an electric car. However, it goes even deeper than that, with many layers to consider.

Canadians are great people. We are kind, generous and compassionate. We can ask any Canadian if they think that child or forced labour is a bad thing and every one of them would say yes. If we ask them if the Government of Canada should do something about it, they will say, “Yes, we must.” Should we ban products produced with forced labour or child labour? Absolutely. That is good, but what are they willing to give up in order for that to happen? I realize that it is hardly that simple, but, really, that is the question. To be honest, most Canadians would be shocked to discover what products we use and enjoy on a daily basis that, in fact, contribute to robbing children of their freedoms.

While I may not always see eye to eye with my colleague from Vancouver East, I would like to reference some statistics from her speech in March. According to a 2016 report from World Vision, it is estimated that 1,200 companies operating in Canada are importing over 34 billion dollars' worth of goods produced by child or forced labour every single year, and that is right here in Canada.

I serve a rural riding and I am an agriculture kind of guy. Canada's farmers are the best in the world, but internationally, the agriculture and grocery industries are among the worst offenders for forced labour and child labour. Seventy-one per cent of all child labour takes places in the agriculture sector, and many of its items end up on Canadian grocery store shelves. In 2019, more than 3.7 billion dollars' worth of these food products were imported into Canada, a 63% increase from 10 years ago.

I look at that number and think about the fact that, as Canadians, we waste somewhere around 58% of the food we produce here in Canada. According to research done by Toronto-based Second Harvest, some 4.8 million tonnes of food is lost or wasted during processing and manufacturing and some 2.38 million tonnes is lost at the consumer level.

In short, the abundance of food we produce here in Canada has led us to dismiss its intrinsic value and we actually waste more than we consume. In a world struggling to feed itself and in a country where one in five families is struggling to feed itself, it is hard to fathom those numbers. Then we turn a blind eye and import billions of dollars' worth of food from countries and companies where we know it is kids slaving to produce it. It is mind-boggling. It is so wrong.

I am glad we are having this conversation. I am glad we have this bill, and there are positive aspects of this legislation. However, I just wish this bill had more teeth. The legislation is great in principle, but there are still some problems with this bill. Given that this will likely be the last chance we have to address these issues, I am going to raise a few of them here.

First, the bill does not prescribe what specific measures a company must take to be in compliance. Yes, it includes general guidance as to what information should be provided, but it is the reporting entities themselves that will retain discretion over the design and implementation of compliance systems.

The Canadian Network on Corporate Accountability, which includes such members as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch Canada, puts it more bluntly. It states that Bill S-211 would only apply to a small minority of companies and it “does not require companies to stop using child or forced labour....or to conduct human rights due diligence.”

If that is the case, or even if we are just leaving it up to the individual companies to police themselves, which in some cases is the very reason why this type of legislation is necessary and has been brought forward, then this legislation may really not have the teeth we all want it to have.

I think this is a situation where it is appropriate for the government to give specific and binding measures and standards to remediate forced labour or child labour in order to be in compliance; otherwise, this is what I see happening.

We will pass this bill. Let us pick a corporation. We will call it the Orange Company. For years, it has used child labour to source its material and build its products. When this legislation comes into effect, Orange Company needs to send its report to the minister's office, so it looks at the guidelines, creates its own reporting system and prepares a report. Who needs to approve this report? If we look at part 2, subsection 4(a), it is the entity's governing body. What other verification is required? One signature. It states in subsection 5(b), “the signature of one or more members of the governing body.”

Without me needing to stretch out this illustration, we can foresee how this does not provide sufficient accountability. Not only that, the systemic concerns run deep, far deeper than what I have time to discuss here.

Let me affirm the efforts identifying, in part 2, subsection 12(1), the minister's prerogative of asking for a revised report in the event of skepticism. I can imagine how this step would force companies to dig deeper and divulge more. However, the consequence for non-compliance is only a fine, really a small fine compared to the revenue that many of these companies will actually generate.

I recognize this legislation is a starting point and we do need to start somewhere, but like so many other topics, this requires a much broader national conversation, one that considers all different layers, including those of the victims. We can slap on band-aids and promise the world, then pat ourselves on the back, but real change always comes with a cost, a cost that would probably infringe on some of the many treasured items that we use daily. That is true of the economy and it is true of our society.

Author Rosie Danan wrote:

Change always comes with a closing cost. But it's still worth trying. Not because the odds are particularly good, mind you, but considering the alternative. There's value in the struggle. Value in touching the raw and bloody parts of our souls, opening them up to the sunlight, and hoping they heal.

As parliamentarians, we have the ability to pass a child and forced labour law that has teeth. We have the ability to ensure that no products made with forced or child labour enter Canada. We can levy severe financial or criminal penalties on those entities that use forced labour, and that do or want to do business here in Canada. We can do all that. The question is this: As Canadians, is that really something that we are willing to do?

Message from the Senate

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I have the honour to inform the House that messages have been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed the following bills to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-205, an act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to another act (interim release and domestic violence recognizance orders); Bill S-210, an act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material; and Bill S-246, an act respecting Lebanese heritage month.

Age Verification Software

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a number of petitions this morning.

The first petition comes from Canadians across the country who are concerned about the ease of access to sexually explicit material for young persons.

The petitioners are concerned about the significant proportion of sexually explicit material available online. It is extremely degrading and not suitable for young people. They are very concerned that porn companies are not doing anything to ensure that young people are not getting access to this material. They also note that Parliament recognized the harm of the increase to the accessibility to sexually explicit material online for young persons in a report back in 2017. They say that online age verification technology is increasingly getting sophisticated and less intrusive and that it can be done without invading privacy.

The petitioners call on the Government of Canada and this Parliament to adopt Bill S-210 with due haste.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the last petition I am presenting this morning is from Canadians across Canada who would like to draw the attention of the House to the following.

Sexually explicit material, including demeaning material and material depicting sexual violence, can be easily accessed on the Internet by young people. The petitioners are concerned that a significant proportion of sexually explicit material accessed online is made available for a commercial purpose and is not protected by any effective age verification method. They are concerned that the consumption of this material is associated with a wide range of harms, including the development of addiction, the reinforcement of gender stereotypes and the development of attitudes favourable to harassment and violence, including sexual harassment and sexual violence, particularly against women.

The petitioners are calling on the government to recognize the harmful effects of the increased accessibility of sexually explicit materials for young persons. They want this to be recognized as an important health and public safety concern. They also want the government to ensure that meaningful age verification technology is being used to prevent young people from gaining access to sexually explicit material. They want anybody making sexually explicit material available for a commercial purpose to have a responsibility to ensure that young people are not gaining access.

Therefore, the people who have signed this petition are calling on the House of Commons to adopt Bill S-210, the protecting young persons from exposure to pornography act, which I note is on its way here from the Senate as we speak.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the next petition is from folks from across Canada who are concerned about the ease of access for young people to sexually explicit material. There is significant concern that sexually explicit material is being targeted toward children, giving porn companies full access to children.

The petitioners are calling on the government to ensure that sexually explicit material for commercial purposes be mandated to have effective age verification methods. They say that the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child states that children should be free from sexual harassment, violence and pornography use as well. They also note that prolonged pornography use leads to an increase in sexual harassment and sexual violence, particularly against young women.

The petitioners are calling for an online verification requirement. This is a recommendation made by stakeholders during a 2017 study before the Standing Committee on Health. They are calling for the Government of Canada to quickly adopt Bill S-210, the protecting young persons from exposure to pornography act.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my third petition calls for the passing of last Parliament's Bill S-203, which in this Parliament is now Bill S-210. The petitioners are concerned about how easy it is for young people to access sexually explicit material online, including violent and degrading explicit material. They comment on how this access is an important public health and public safety concern. Petitioners note that a significant portion of commercially accessed sexually explicit material has no age verification software. Moreover, the age verification software can ascertain the age of users without breaching their privacy rights.

Petitioners note that many serious harms associated with sexually explicit material include the development of addiction and the development of attitudes favourable to sexual violence and harassment of women. As such, these petitioners call on the House of Commons to pass legislation protecting young people.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, my second petition is from people across this country who are calling on the government to pass Bill S-210. The petitioners are concerned about how easy it is for young people to gain access to sexually explicit material online, including violent and degrading sexually explicit material. They comment on how this is an important public health and public safety concern. They note that a significant portion of commercially accessible material has no age verification software. Moreover, age verification can be done without breaching privacy rights.

The petitioners note the many serious harms associated with sexually explicit material, including the development of addictions and the development of attitudes favourable to sexual violence and the harassment of women. Finally, these petitioners call on the House of Commons to pass this legislation to protect young minds.

Online Pornography

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my honour to present a number of petitions today.

In the first petition, petitioners are concerned about how easy it is for young people to access sexually explicit material online, including violent and degrading explicit material. They note that this is a public health and public safety concern.

The petitioners note that a significant portion of commercially accessed sexually explicit material have no age verification software. Moreover, that age verification software could ascertain the age of users without breaching their privacy rights. They note many serious harms associated with sexually explicit material, including the development of addiction and the development of attitudes favourable to sexual violence and harassment of women.

As such, the petitioners call on the House of Commons to quickly pass Bill S-210, the protection of young persons from exposure to pornography act.

Child Health Protection Act

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-252, which focuses on the prohibition of food and beverage marketing directed at children.

This bill is mostly a preamble, and there is some strong language in the preamble about protecting kids from manipulative media and about their vulnerability to marketing and media. We should be concerned about marketing that is targeting kids with things that are beyond their age or could be harmful to them.

What about sexually explicit materials and their impact on kids? Numerous studies show the harmful impact that exposure to pornography and hypersexualized media can have on kids, including mental health issues such as depression, loneliness, low self-esteem, increased likelihood of accepting sexual violence or rape myths and an increased risk of girls being sexually harassed and boys committing sexual harassment. The Canadian Centre for Child Protection highlights that exposure to pornography by children may shape a child’s expectations in relationships, blur boundaries and increase a child’s risk of victimization, increase a child’s health risks through, for example, sexually transmitted infections or sexual exploitation, and increase a child’s risk of problematic sexual behaviour against other children in an effort to experiment.

We know that children’s exposure to sexually explicit content, particularly that which is violent and degrading, causes serious and significant harm to mental and emotional health. We know that much of the pornographic content published and hosted on MindGeek websites is sexist, racist or degrading to particular groups. We also know that some of the content involves actual violence or coercion, or is shared without consent.

We need to be focused on the marketing that targets children, and one of the most pressing areas is companies that publish sexually explicit material. If we want to protect “vulnerable children from the manipulative influence of marketing”, particularly harmful content online, we should be starting with predatory porn companies. Porn companies should not have unlimited access to kids online but they do, and they have no requirement to make sure those accessing their sites are actually over the age of 18.

For example, MindGeek is a Montreal-based company not too far from the riding of the sponsor of this bill. MindGeek employs around 1,600 people. It is based in Montreal and the online platforms it owns include Pornhub, RedTube, YouPorn and Brazzers. According to MindGeek's own data, its websites received approximately 4.5 billion visits each month in 2020, equivalent to the monthly visitors of Facebook. Many of those visitors were kids.

That is why last spring, when Bill C-11 was going through the Canadian heritage committee, I proposed amendments to help protect kids from exposure to sexually explicit content. Specifically, my amendment would have added to the policy objective of the Broadcasting Act that it “seek to protect the health and well-being of children by preventing the broadcasting to children of programs that include sexually explicit content”. It was supported by multiple child advocacy organizations and those fighting online exploitation in briefs submitted to the heritage committee.

Defend Dignity, a great organization, pointed out that these amendments are supported by general comment 25, which was recently adopted by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Canada is a signatory to it. The Convention on the Rights of the Child's general comment notes:

States parties should take all appropriate measures to protect children from risks to their right to life, survival and development. Risks relating to content, contact, conduct and contract encompass, among other things, violent and sexual content, cyberaggression and harassment, gambling, exploitation and abuse, including sexual exploitation and abuse, and the promotion of or incitement to suicide or life-threatening activities, including by criminals or armed groups designated as terrorist or violent extremist.

To be clear, they urge signatories like Canada to “take all appropriate measures to protect children from risks...relating to...violent and sexual content”. That is why Defend Dignity said, “Protecting children from the harms of sexually explicit material and society from the dangerous impact of violent sexually explicit material must be a priority.”

Timea’s Cause, another great organization, and OneChild, with a combined 32 years of experience in combatting the sexual exploitation of children, wrote to the heritage committee and said:

Today, Canadian children's access to sexually explicit content and the broadcasting of sexual violence has gone far beyond the realm of television and radio. This content is broadcasted online through digital advertising to pornography. The Internet has unleashed a tsunami of content that is objectifying, violent, and misogynistic in nature, and those viewing this harmful content are getting younger and younger....

This content greatly informs our cultural norms, values, and ideologies. In the case of children, who are still navigating the world and are in the process of developing their sense of self and esteem and learning how they should treat others and how others should treat them-this kind of material is detrimental to their development. It warps their understanding of sex, consent, boundaries, healthy relationships, and gender roles. Moreover, viewing this kind of online content has frightening links to rape, “sextortion”, deviant and illegal types of pornography such as online child abuse material, domestic violence, patronizing prostitution, and even involvement in sex trafficking.

At the heritage committee, when it came to a vote on my amendment, it had NDP support, but the Liberal Party voted it down. It was puzzling that, for the Liberals, who want to control the posts of regular Canadians and now target food advertisers, porn companies get a free pass when it comes to our kids.

I will say it again: Predatory companies such as MindGeek should not have unlimited access to our kids online. This is not new. Over two and a half years ago, we wrote to the Prime Minister asking him for help to stop this. We got no reply. Then, two years ago, MPs and senators from across party lines wrote the justice minister, and this was followed by a New York Times exposé asking, “Why does Canada allow this company to profit off videos of exploitation and assault?”

We then had an ethics committee study last year, a committee that the sponsor of the bill sat on, with 14 recommendations supported by all parties, and still there was no attempt by the government to provide oversight to a part of the Internet that has caused so much pain and suffering to women, youth and vulnerable individuals.

Now, there is a courageous, independent senator who is taking on predatory porn companies like MindGeek with the goal of keeping kids safe online. She has introduced Bill S-210, the protecting young persons from exposure to pornography act, in the Senate, which would require all that publish sexually explicit material to verify the age of the consumer.

The preamble of Bill S-210 states:

Whereas the consumption of sexually explicit material by young persons is associated with a range of serious harms, including the development of pornography addiction, the reinforcement of gender stereotypes and the development of attitudes favourable to harassment and violence — including sexual harassment and sexual violence — particularly against women;

Whereas Parliament recognizes that the harmful effects of the increasing accessibility of sexually explicit material online for young persons are an important public health and public safety concern;

The preamble then continues:

And whereas any organization making sexually explicit material available on the Internet for commercial purposes has a responsibility to ensure that it is not accessed by young persons;

This bill is at committee at the moment in the Senate, and it is hopefully headed to the House soon. When it gets here, I hope it will have strong support among all the parties.

When it comes to Bill C-252, I support the intentions and the aims of the bill, and I commend the member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel for her efforts. As parents, we want our children to be healthy and protect them from marketing that could be harmful.

The striking difference between Bill S-210 and Bill C-252 is that the former has a clear framework put in place to do what it aims to do, and I do not see that in Bill C-252, which is not written in a way that could actually accomplish what it claims to do. We know that Quebec passed similar legislation in 1980 to ban advertising aimed at kids under 13, and it has largely been ineffective in lowering child obesity rates.

I also believe that parents should be able to make informed food choices for their families and have affordable access to nutritious foods, the latter of which has become incredibly difficult due to the inflation crisis caused by the Liberal government.

To be successful on this, we need co-operation across all sectors, and I look forward to working with members of the House and across the economy to ensure that we have parents and corporations working together to encourage healthy living.

Age Verification Software

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the next petition I have today comes from petitioners across the country who are concerned about how young people can easily access explicit material online, including violently explicit and degrading material. The petitioners comment on how this access is an important public health and safety concern. They note that a significant portion of commercially accessed sexually explicit material has no age verification software. Moreover, age verification software can ascertain the age of users without breaching their privacy rights. The petitioners note the many serious harms associated with sexually explicit material, including the development of addictions and attitudes favourable to sexual violence and the harassment of women. As such, they are calling on the House of Commons to pass Bill S-210, the protecting young persons from exposure to pornography act.

Right to Vote at 16 Act

[Julie Dabrusin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Natural Resources and to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change]

Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to be able to stand today and speak in favour of Bill S-210, which would lower the voting age to 16. I think it is a really important thing for us to be talking about today and giving support.

I thought that a good place to start would be to hand over the mike to some members of my youth council. I have a youth council. They are young people in the community who give me advice and talk with me about the issues that are important to them in the community. I asked them how they felt about this issue of reducing the voting age. We had a great discussion about it. I thought we should hear from them because we are talking about their voting rights.

Jessica said, “Adolescents at the age of 16 are at the point in their lives where they are most engaged in their communities as they are starting to get jobs, a driver's licence, and in general getting involved in society. Getting adolescents involved with voting can lead to more long-lasting participation in democratic activities throughout their life.”

Another member in my youth council, Safik, talked about it also in favour. He said, “Age isn't always a factor when you have mature teens and adults. On the flip, you have immature teens and adults who get to vote. We also have to find a way to have teens' voices respected by adults so that they can take their opinions seriously before voting. ”

Finally, the other member of my youth council who I would like to give a voice is Jona, who said, “Giving youth the vote strengthens our democracy—youth may not have the same experiences or emotional maturity as adults, but that's why our vote would be beneficial. Giving the youth a vote will offer an additional perspective, and will make voting results more well rounded. Youth have very different eyes when looking at the world, and so giving the older youth the vote will make our system a better democracy. Because after all, the point of a democracy is that everyone gets a say, but it's not everyone if we are excluding an entire demographic.”

I would like to thank the members of my youth council, because I think it was really important that they took the time to help me get ready for this debate and to share their thoughts. I believe very much, whenever I hear from them, that they have some very strong and great ideas. It would be so wonderful to have them engaged in the voting process.

I wanted to give some facts because this is not the first time that we have talked about expanding the voting age or who may vote. In fact, over time it has evolved in Canada. It has not been this static thing that the people who can vote today were the people who could vote at Confederation. Just to put it in context, this is not the first time that this kind of thing has happened. For example, in 1867, upon Confederation, only property-owning men, 20 years or older, could vote. I would say that it was not even all of the men who were eligible to vote at that point. The vote was only extended to some women in 1918. For a whole portion of our history, I would not have been able to vote, just to put that in context as we talk about the voting age and voting in general. The voting age was revised in 1970 as well.

Therefore, it is not without precedent to talk about this. As our democracy evolves, as we have different conversations that evolve, there are different measures to consider about what we can do to make sure that people are engaged and that we are hearing the voices we need to hear when making decisions as to who should be here in this place.

I think we are also, perhaps, at a turning point where it is even more important than ever to think about that. How do we engage more people in wanting to vote? There has been a downward trend in people actually showing up to vote. Certainly, in my home province of Ontario in the last election, we saw a drastic reduction in the number of people who showed up to vote.

How can we make sure that people are engaged from an early time and continue to be throughout their lives? I think in a place like my home community, a lot of the times the polling stations are actually in schools, the same place that these young people who are 16 years old are learning about civics. We walk right by them to go into their school gyms and libraries to vote. They might be having a class just down the hall about civics, but there is a bit of a disconnect. Sometimes what I hear from some young people who are just about to vote is that they actually do not know enough about the process. It is new. That might be something that holds some people back.

If it was at 16, when many of them are in school and the polling stations might be close by, that might engage a whole bunch more people to say that it is something they have seen and can relate to and as they are talking about these issues right now in class they are going to walk across and vote.

The other part I would say is that we see today, with climate strikes across our country, young people are at the centre and the lead of many of the movements we have in our country. They have strong ideas about the future, and the future is what we are going to be handing to them. When we talk about the things we are doing here in this place now, that relates to their future as well, so it is important to make sure they have the opportunity to get engaged and to be the leaders they are, and that translates into their being able to vote.

One thing I have found interesting is that political parties often reduce the age from 18 for people to be able to get involved in the party and become members. There is a bit of a distinction between the people who might be able to vote to nominate the person who will be the candidate in an election for a certain party and those who might actually be able to vote in the election itself. There is a bit of a funny mix there. As political parties, we often recognize that people under the age of 18 have something to contribute to the choices we make.

I know I do not have much more time, so I want to focus on mentioning that we are talking about the voting age today, which I think is very important, but we have also taken actions as a government over the past years to try to assist young people to be able to vote more. For example, the Government of Canada established the register of future electors in 2019 so that young Canadians can pre-register to vote, to remove one of the barriers to people who are going to be voting for the first time.

There are definitely a lot of community-led groups that work to try to engage more people to understand the democratic process, how to vote and those pieces. We have been supporting youth-led projects that promote civic engagement in youth services through programs like Canadian Heritage's youth take charge program.

As a government, we have recognized the importance of engaging young people and making sure they understand how the voting process works. Why not take that next step and recognize that they have so much to contribute and reduce the voting age to 16?

On that note, I want to say I am supportive of this bill. I think it is a wonderful thing that we are considering doing it. I consider it an evolution in the way we address voting in our country. I am so proud that so many young people have taken a moment to become engaged and have their voices heard, like the young people on my youth council, and to show that they are ready. They are ready to vote and to take hold of the reins of their future.

Age Verification Software

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the next petition I am presenting today is from Canadians across the country who are concerned about the impact of sexually explicit material, including demeaning and violent material on the Internet. These folks are worried about the consumption of sexually explicit material by young persons and a range of harms, including the development of gender stereotypes and the development of harassment and violence, including sexual harassment and sexual violence particularly against women.

The petitioners are calling on the Government of Canada to enact meaningful age verification. Also, a recommendation was brought forward by the health committee in 2017, so they call for the House to adopt Bill S-210, the protecting young persons from exposure to pornography act.