The challenge is that the definition that the bill is based on, the definition of “sexually explicit material”, is not limited to pornography. The offence in clause 5 of the bill is as follows:
Any organization that, for commercial purposes, makes available sexually explicit material on the Internet to a young person is guilty of an offence....
The reasonable ground to believe is whether they've made sexually explicit material available. Again, there's nothing in the definition of “sexually explicit material” that limits it to pornography.
As I mentioned, paragraph 171.1(5)(a) of the definition in the Criminal Code states:
(a) a photographic, film, video, or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means, (i) that shows a person who is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity...
There's no limitation there that it's pornographic.
And then subparagraph 171(5)(a)(ii) states:
(ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose...
There you see the sexual purpose.
Again, there are certain places where you see this caveat, and that first paragraph that I read doesn't have that limitation.