Public Safety Committee on May 27th, 2024

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

In that regard, though, you've seen age restriction technologies and policies challenged in courts and jurisdictions in the U.S. and in the U.K.

How do we make sure that this doesn't end up with a challenge in the courts?

[Julie Miville-Dechêne]

Up to now, in the U.S., the porn companies that have sued have lost. Now in the U.S., which is really very strong in terms of freedom of expression, there's already a court decision that says that those laws are not unconstitutional. That's really interesting because years ago it was the contrary.

Now the problem of young people—children—watching porn is so prevalent that the courts have obviously changed their idea on it. I would say also—

[Taleeb Noormohamed, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I want to be clear that nobody here is saying let's give children unfettered access to porn, so let that not be the message you're hearing.

What I am trying to do is to make sure that whatever we do does not end up being challenged successfully in the courts.

For example, you've talked a little bit about the U.S. In the U.K., there has been a series of challenges and other jurisdictions have seen challenges around this. In Canada, we have an ongoing debate in respect of people's privacy.

How do we ensure that members of the LGBTQ2S+ community in particular, and others, do not find themselves on the wrong end of the long arm of the law? To be clear, this is not about saying let us give unfettered access to pornography to children. Let that not be the takeaway.

My question is, how do we handle this in a way that protects young people, that provides people the assurance that what is being done here falls within the grounds of Canada's privacy laws, and that we're doing this in a manner that is consistent with the law?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

I'll let the Senator answer, and then we'll go to Madam Michaud.

[Julie Miville-Dechêne]

On the question of lawsuits, in France and Germany, all the lawsuits have been lost by the porn companies, so we are not facing a great challenge at this point.

On your second question, this bill's goal is to protect all children—all minors—from porn. What you're saying here is that particular members of the LGBTQ could be particularly vulnerable to the privacy issue.

I haven't seen any study on that. We are saying that privacy will be respected. On betting and on all kinds of other questions, we are giving some of our identity to a lot of people. Why would it be different here and why would this community be targeted?

I'm sorry, I don't get it. In Canada, with the laws we have, what makes you think their names would come out?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Ms. Michaud for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Senator, thank you for coming. I'm eager to hear you speak about Bill S-210, an important bill that aims to restrict young people's online access to sexually explicit material. We could also say that it aims to protect young people from learning about sex from online porn.

I liked the way you described the bill when you said that its purpose is to do online what we do offline. Things were much easier when children weren't allowed to go to convenience stores to buy magazines containing pornographic material. Now it's a little more complicated, with everything available online.

You will have noticed though that this bill does not meet with unanimous approval. The government voted against sending it to a parliamentary committee for study. It's thanks to the vote of the other opposition parties that the committee is able to study this bill today. I've read it and I think it's a good bill. In fact, the Bloc Québécois supports it.

Age verification is obviously not a simple matter. We have read about what's being done in other countries. You mentioned Germany, the UK, France, some US states, Spain and Australia, among others. From what I have read about the concrete measures taken by those countries, I note that the law has yet to be applied in many cases, or that it will only be applied in future pilot projects. So we don't necessarily have a clear indication of what is being done and what Canada could do, or examples from which to draw inspiration.

I'd like to hear your comments on a question you raised earlier, and I'll allow you to answer in French: Why did you choose to have the operating provisions in the regulations rather than right in the bill?

What kind of regulations would you like to see the government put in place? Aren't you worried about putting everything in the regulations, given that the government doesn't want anything to do with Bill S-210?

[Julie Miville-Dechêne]

I'm going to start by talking about other countries.

Germany has been verifying age for many years by means of regulations. We also heard testimony on this subject at the Senate. There have never been any leaks of personal information. There are 80 different systems, implemented in collaboration with accredited third parties. So it's a system that works, because this country obviously started regulating before Pornhub came along. However, international platforms refuse to comply.

As for Great Britain, a first bill wasn't successful. A second one has been passed, and they're working on regulations, which will be forthcoming. I know their bill was one of the models that the Canadian government looked at, because it's quite rigorous, it took years to prepare, and it's excellent. It deals extensively both with pornography and with the fact that both pornographic sites and social media have to be addressed. Kids are looking at pornography on Twitter as much as on porn sites. So we have to worry about the whole picture.

So there are countries that do verify age, but you're right: We're still in the early stages. One cannot say that Germany is a tiny country, though, and its system works. France will be moving ahead in September.

To come back to your question about regulations, it's true that the government has said quite clearly that it doesn't like my bill. However, I'm one of those people who believes that governments have responsibilities. I trust that, once the bill becomes law, the government will consult experts and look for the best age verification methods, ones that will best protect Canadians. So I don't see why there should be any bad faith with respect to regulations, since creating a poor age-verification system won't benefit a single Canadian.

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

Thank you.

In your opinion, would Germany be the best example to follow?

[Julie Miville-Dechêne]

No, it's one example.

I would say that the British law as drafted is far more similar to those we produce in our legal system and government.

In the regulations to the act, there is now talk of age estimation, age assurance. Yes, there are ID cards, and yes, there are more traditional methods, but there is also age estimation. Without collecting any data, this method estimates a person's age to within two years. If this method doesn't work, you can switch to another method.

What's very interesting about the British is that they say it's the responsibility of those who distribute pornography to ensure that these methods, which would normally be applied by third parties, work. So we're not taking responsibility away from the porn sites. We're still saying that it's up to them, if there's a choice of methods, not only to choose one, but also to make sure it works.

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

I only have a few seconds left, but I want to hear your thoughts on the fact that, according to the government, we don't need Bill S-210, since there's Bill C-63. To my knowledge, they're not the same at all. Bill C‑63 is extremely important, to be sure, but it's not identical to Bill S‑210. Do you share that opinion?

[Julie Miville-Dechêne]

I supported the first part of Bill C‑63, which deals with the whole issue of children. There are some very good things in there but, strangely, not a word about age verification or pornography, which are nonetheless a major source of harm associated with social media. I'm very disappointed. No matter how many times I'm told that the commission that will be set up one day might decide that age verification is the right way to go, it doesn't reassure me. This is all setting us back.

For me, this is a pressing public health issue. For the past 15 to 20 years, our children have been subjected to unrestricted pornography, and it's changing the way they view sexuality. Sexuality should be a wonderful thing, and I'm all for healthy sexuality, but that's not what pornography shows. I understand that it's legal for adults, but it was never meant to be consumed by children or used to teach them about sex.

Not only does it take away all their dreams and any mystery, but it also makes them adopt appalling behaviours that are more violent. According to a study that completely blew my mind, over 47% of young men and women say that sexual relationships are necessarily violent, and that girls expect it. Look where we've ended up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

We'll go now to Mr. MacGregor.

You have six minutes, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Senator, for joining us today to help inform the committee on this bill.

I voted in favour of this bill at second reading. I agree with the principle. Many of the members are parents—not only members around this table, but members in the House of Commons—so we come at this not just with a professional interest, but also with a personal interest.

That being said, it's generated a lot of correspondence from a lot of my constituents and, indeed, many people who know I'm a member of this committee. I come at this personally by trying to balance parents' real concerns over children's access, but I also want to find out a bit more about the people who are raising privacy concerns. That's why I want to pay particular attention to this study.

One of the questions I have.... We have received a number of briefs on this bill, as well as recommendations. One of the recommendations that came was with regard to the ability to verify users' ages at the point of access on devices, rather than on websites.

Are you familiar with this technology?

[Julie Miville-Dechêne]

Yes. It's—

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

Can you explain the differences, and why you chose one path over the other?

[Julie Miville-Dechêne]

This technology is promoted by Ethical Capital Partners, which is now the new owner of Pornhub.

They've been going around Parliament to promote this technology. When we met, I said to them, “Listen, if you think you can convince the big companies—Google and others—to do it, that's fine, but at this point, we have porn sites that are responsible for having let children watch porn for the last 20 years. They are saying, 'Oh, no. We're not the ones that are going to verify their age. Let somebody else do it'”.

Obviously, to start with, it's a little strange, and then there's this whole idea of having.... I have nothing against having some age verification on the telephone, but nobody does it around the world. This technology may be possible one day, but at this point, it's not the case.

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

Is that because of the sheer variety of devices out there? Some people might be using a laptop, a phone or an old desktop computer.

[Julie Miville-Dechêne]

It's because you would have to have a lot of.... Google, Microsoft and all of them would have to agree to do that, and we have no indication at all that this is a new method that some countries are using. Nobody has taken this route yet.

I'm not saying it's not a great route, but it doesn't exist now.

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

I want to get into some of the weeds of the bill. When I go through your bill, on page 3, there is subclause 6(2), "Defence—legitimate purpose":

No organization shall be convicted of an offence under section 5 if the act that is alleged to constitute the offence has a legitimate purpose related to science, medicine, education or the arts.

If I were to go out in the street and ask people about the term “legitimate purpose”, I think it's a term that's very open to interpretation.

Can you explain how you see it as as the bill's sponsor?

[Julie Miville-Dechêne]

I understand that this defence is used in different circumstances. Obviously, there is there a question of interpretation. I would say that people say that essentially showing a nude on social media would be problematic. Not only do they not understand this particular definition, but it's larger than that. Sexually explicit material does not refer to simple nudity. It's a term in the Criminal Code, and this definition is very specific.

I will read it in French. I'm sorry; I have to—

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

I don't need you to read it.

I have it in front of me, and it's in the Criminal Code.

[Julie Miville-Dechêne]

The goal has to be sexual in nature. It's not only nudity; it has to be there for excitement.

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

You feel that clearly helps define the term “legitimate purpose”, the fact that it is in existence in the Criminal Code. Okay, that's good. That's what I wanted to know.

The other part I wanted to get to is on page five, paragraph 9(5)(a). This is about the effect of the Federal Court order. In this section, it says that the court order may have the effect of preventing persons in Canada from being able to access material other than sexually explicit material made available by the organization that has been given notice.

What other material do you think could be prevented from people having access to it, and why did you include this section in the bill?

Can you clarify this a little bit more for me?

[Julie Miville-Dechêne]

Okay. If you'll permit, I will answer in French on that.

First, it's important to understand that, before a website can be blocked, the person responsible for it will receive a detailed notice. They will then have 20 days to decide whether or not to comply with the law. After that, the case will be referred to federal court, which will deliberate to decide whether we've really reached the stage where the site needs to be blocked. I want to say this because it's a method that is in keeping with Canadian legal standards, which protect those whom we want to punish by giving them the recourse to speak in court and defend themselves.

If, after all that, the pornographic site is deemed not to be taking action, the question of blocking arises. When an ISP is told that it must block a site, it can do so. If a website contains both pornographic and non-pornographic material, once you block it, you're blocking more than just the pornographic content. In this case, the reason is simple: it's up to the site to decide whether or not it complies with the law. Let's take the analogy of a bar. If a bar lets minors in and lets them drink alcohol, the bar will eventually lose its liquor license, preventing it from serving alcohol not only to minors, but also to adults.