Public Safety Committee on May 27th, 2024

[Julie Miville-Dechêne]

Yes. I told you that Pierre Trudel was one of the experts testifying, and we have, obviously, consulted with experts.

I have been working on this bill for four years, so, obviously, it's not a perfect bill. Sexually explicit material refers to things that are there to excite with close-ups of sexual organs. We are not talking here about very rosy pictures. This is very different. I have watched pornography to prepare this bill. You would not find it difficult to differentiate what you see on HBO and what you see on a porn site. I'm sorry to say that it's very, very different.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

We will have to wrap that up.

I'll now give the floor to Ms. Michaud for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Senator, this is a very interesting conversation. I imagine that it's something you've had to constantly repeat over the past four years.

You said that the bill had been the subject of two studies at the Senate. Inevitably, changes have been made, including to section 11. You talked a bit about it earlier, saying that there were concerns about access to personal information or privacy.

Could you tell us about the changes made to the original bill and whether, in your opinion, those are changes for the better?

[Julie Miville-Dechêne]

Yes. I totally agreed with the changes to the first version of the bill.

Let's not forget that I started to work on this bill during the pandemic when everything was so complicated. We made corrections. In particular, I introduced amendments to correct two errors.

The first mistake was that, initially, individuals and not organizations were named in the offence. That created the risk of complicating the lives of sex workers in particular. We didn't want to target those individuals, but rather the organizations stipulated in the Criminal Code. So we made that change.

We've also greatly strengthened the second section of the bill to allow recourse to federal court. Initially, as in some countries where a site is blocked when an offence has been observed or when a site doesn't comply with the law, a site could be blocked if the designated authority deemed it necessary. We added recourse to federal court precisely to ensure that there would be no political or ideological intervention in these decisions, and that they were really made on the basis of facts that could be cross-checked by the court.

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

The bill sets out the date that the legislation but not the regulations would come into force. In a bill such as this, is it possible to stipulate that the regulations on age verification must come into force before a specific year?

We worked on Bill C‑21, but the regulations that followed the passage of the old Bill C‑71 weren't even in force yet. It took several years for that to happen.

How can we make sure that the government works quickly on an age-verification system if this bill ultimately passes?

[Julie Miville-Dechêne]

You have to live on hope. You're absolutely right. Age verification has to be perfected, the regulations have to be ready for this bill to come into force. I think one year is a reasonable period, given that we'll be able to see what's being done in France and Great Britain, two countries we know well and which will have all the necessary framework and regulations in place within the coming months. The government will therefore have examples to follow.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Ms. Michaud.

We will go now to Mr. MacGregor, for two and a half minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Senator, I think the one part I wanted to focus on—as my colleagues have—is the regulations section of this bill and specifically clause 11. Now, subclause 11(1) is very easy to understand, but on subclause 11(2), I had some questions about the wording, because it says:

Before prescribing an age verification method under subsection (1), the Governor in Council must consider whether the method

Then you have points (a) through to (e). I question the choice of the wording “must consider”, because that seems to give the government a way out, like, “Oh, we considered these five points”. Wouldn't it be stronger to say something like “the Governor in Council must verify that it is reliable, that it maintains privacy, that it collects and uses personal information solely for age verification”?

For me as a parent looking at this, if I actually had wording in the bill that the Governor in Council must do this rather than consider it.... Do you see where some people might have concerns? The language in the bill might be giving the government a way out. Yes, it has to consider it, but it doesn't have to verify that it's actually in place.

[Julie Miville-Dechêne]

I would say that obviously “consider” has some strength, but the age verification methods are all different. From my reading, some of those won't apply. If you do age estimation, for example, you're not collecting personal data, so some of those rules will not apply. Depending on the age verification that will be put in place, you will use them or less.... I think that's why there was prudence in choosing “consider” instead of “must apply”.

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

Okay. That was the rationale. It was because of the different technologies that are out there. They wouldn't necessarily all satisfy all of these points.

[Julie Miville-Dechêne]

No.

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

Given the privacy concerns that are being expressed, wouldn't we want them all to comply with these points? I don't know if you would want four out of five in this case. Would you?

[Julie Miville-Dechêne]

If there's no collecting of personal information, it doesn't need to apply.

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

Right.

[Julie Miville-Dechêne]

I think it leaves some leeway for the different methods chosen, but I take your point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you, Mr. MacGregor.

We will go to Mr. Shipley for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Senator, for being here today.

My first question has to do with.... I wasn't sure, but someone earlier in the hour—I'm not sure if it was the chair or you, Senator—mentioned that you've tried four different times—I believe that was the number—to get this bill through. Could you expand on that? Where and why has that been stopped other times?

[Julie Miville-Dechêne]

That's interesting. It's been all my life in the four last years.... Well, not all of it, because I'm a senator on other things, too, but yes, I started in 2020. In fact, I started when I went to demonstrate in front of Pornhub against illegal sexual material. You know, they had child pornography. There were some really serious accusations and allegations of child pornography, so I went there. After the demonstration, I started to talk to myself: “What are the children doing during this pandemic?” They were on their screens. That's where the whole idea started to become real.

Starting in 2020, I had a first round with my bill, which went through the committee. I had tough questions and a lot of questions. I made some changes. We were still in the pandemic, and then the election was called. In this process, the bill was passed in the Senate and then it died. Then it was off the books, so I had to start all over again after the election, from first reading, and do the whole process again with different people in the committee. The more I went through it, the more supporters I had. At the end, there was no opposition in committee and no opposition in the Senate when this bill was passed.

It took a long time, but I'm told that it's not completely out of the ordinary that private members' bills can take time. In this case, I was not served because of the election arriving at the time that it arrived.

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

Thanks. I'm glad I asked that, because I thought the number was four. It sounds like it's been twice. Thanks for the clarification on that.

One of the concerns, obviously.... I don't think anybody in this room feels that children should be accessing any types of pornography, but one of the issues, quite frankly, is the age verification and the process. You mentioned and the bill mentions that this is going to be done by a third party company. Are there currently any Canadian companies that do this type of business? Who would they do it for? I mean specifically the age verification.

[Julie Miville-Dechêne]

Yoti is one of the main players. It has a place of business, I think, on the west coast, but it's originally from Britain. Yoti is one of the big players in age verification.

There are many of them, but I think, as for Canadian.... There is one in Ontario.

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

I'm sorry to interrupt, though. Do you know who or what...?

There's a joke there, but I'll leave Mr. Bittle alone on that one. He really threw me off.

[Julie Miville-Dechêne]

Was it about using Yoti?

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

I'm sorry.

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

Who or what industries are they age verifying? You mentioned the company, but what are they doing now—for whom and for what?

[Julie Miville-Dechêne]

Well, that's a good question.

I know there is age verification, for example, in online betting. However, is it done by an age verifier or, in this case, by credit card? I don't think we have a lot of age verifying in Canada.

I'm sorry. I'm not able to intelligently answer your question. Do you want me to send you an answer?