Public Safety Committee on May 27th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Mr. MacGregor, thank you.

I'm sorry; your time is up.

Mr. Genuis, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Senator.

I think it's really important to clarify this issue of site blocking, because I think there's been some misinformation around it. To be really clear, and perhaps you can clarify this, but site blocking is only a penalty for those who persistently violate the law. If I commit a crime, I might go to jail, and if I'm sent to jail, that violates my mobility rights and my ability to do all kinds of other things that I would normally be able to do. That's because I've committed a crime, and I'm being penalized for it.

In the same way, this bill isn't about site blocking in general. It only allows that to be used as a penalty for those who persistently refuse to follow the law.

Is that correct?

[Julie Miville-Dechêne]

This is correct.

I could add here that, in Germany, Twitter was carrying both non-porn material and porn material. The government said, you're not doing age verification. Finally, what happened was that Twitter dropped all of their porn part. They decided by themselves because they didn't want to be subject to the age verification law.

Twitter just had 60 pages off their site in Germany, so regulations work. That's what I want to say here.

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

Thank you.

On the social media issue, some critics have said that this would apply to social media that chooses to host pornographic content and show it to children, but the point would seem to me that if you can't serve alcohol to children in a bar, you also can't serve alcohol to children in an ice cream stand. If we determine that an activity should be age-protected, then that age verification has to necessarily exist in every context where that content could be shown to children.

The solution is that it's not age verification for those sites in general, but it is specifically for the pornographic content we're talking about, because Twitter shouldn't be allowed to show pornography to nine-year-olds and neither should any other website.

[Julie Miville-Dechêne]

It's fairly easy to do because, if you've been on Twitter and you've tried to find porn, you will see that there's a page that announces that sensitive content is coming.

Twitter knows where it is, so it's easy to find and it can be age-blocked, age-verified—all of those things work.

I would also expand on this analogy that children can't go in a bar and drink, but they are allowed to go to a restaurant. The server is not allowed to give them a drink.

It's not so much where, but it's the pornographic content that we're aiming at. This is where it has to be stopped because it's obviously not only with porn sites, but also on social media platforms.

This is where, many times, children have their first opportunity—even pops-up—to see pornography.

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

It seems obvious to me that in a world of rapidly evolving technology, there's no way you could put in the text of legislation precisely the kind of age verification method that would be used. That would forestall the process of gradual improvement in effectiveness.

For those who are skeptical of government power in general, what are the safeguards on the regulation-making process that are in the bill and that exist in general?

[Julie Miville-Dechêne]

I would go back to clause 11, because this came out of the process in the Senate. This was an amendment because, obviously, we heard the same concerns, so we said, let's put real safeguards in the bill.

They are in clause 11. The method that will be chosen has to be reliable, maintain user privacy and protect users' personal information, collect and use personal information solely for age verification purposes, destroy any personal information collected for age verification purposes once the verification is completed—we're talking here about destroying it—and then generally comply with the best practices.

In truth, how could we have chosen an age-verification method? I've been on this for four years and the world has evolved and technology has evolved.

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

Senator, that's extremely clear in the text of the bill.

To conclude my questions, how do you account for the volume of misinformation and outright disinformation?

I think some of it may be coming from certain industry groups, but how do you account for the volume of just nonsense, frankly? There are some people who are scared about what would happen if this bill is passed because they don't understand what it's about at all.

How do you account for that, and what's your response to that?

[Julie Miville-Dechêne]

It's easy to scare people with disinformation. For me, I'm incapable of understanding that this falsehood becomes more important than protecting all children.

As we all know, our rights, defended by the charter, are not absolute. Yes, freedom of expression exists, and adults will continue to be able to watch porn, but what about the children? They also have rights.

The United Nations is asking countries now to have age-verification systems. When I started this bill, it was not as well known. Now that time has passed it's a real public safety issue, and I think it has to be addressed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ron McKinnon]

Thank you.

Mr. Gaheer, go ahead, please, for five minutes.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Senator, for appearing before the committee.

The legislation you've proposed doesn't include a definition of sexually explicit material or pornography, but rather it refers to a section of the Criminal Code about making sexually explicit material available to children. Is that right?

[Julie Miville-Dechêne]

Yes.

Pornography, sexually explicit material, doesn't exist as such in the Criminal Code with respect to adults. It exists only with respect to child pornography. The known term is “sexually explicit material.” I would read you the definition, because when we read—

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Why didn't you provide a definition of that in your proposed bill? Why are you relying on the definition?

[Julie Miville-Dechêne]

This is the way it's done. In the definition, I'm referring to sexually explicit material. In bills, you don't give the Criminal Code definition. It stands by itself in the Criminal Code, because if the definition is changed, you don't want that to affect your bill.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Sure, that's fair.

[Julie Miville-Dechêne]

I want to read into the record what it is.

No? You don't want me to read it?

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

It's just that I have limited time. I do want to get on to my question if that's okay. I apologize.

As you are relying on that external definition, were you aware that the majority of online streaming organizations—we can think of household names like HBO, Hulu and Netflix, which are commonly available to families across this country—are not accessed for their pornographic content? They do host content that sometimes does contain sensitive aspects and some aspects of sexually explicit material. Were you aware that they would also be implicated within the wording of the bill as it's currently presented?

[Julie Miville-Dechêne]

No, I didn't consult with them.

I think you have to understand the definition of sexual—

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

I apologize—

[Julie Miville-Dechêne]

It's not just nudity and it's not just sensitive material.

I will quote Professor Trudel, who's a specialist on these questions:

In Sharpe, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified that the expression “explicit sexual activity” refers to intimate sexual activity represented in a graphic and unambiguous fashion, and intended to cause sexual stimulation to those who consume such material.

We're not talking about trivial images here.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

I'm sorry, but I do have to interrupt.

The aspect I'm reaching out about is that when you have online content, especially on Netflix, HBO or Hulu, the interpretation could be different depending on whether it's meant to include a scene or an entire movie.

Do you believe that the non-pornographic content in these shows that are available across this country should be evaluated and regulated and should carry the same legal liability as would content that you propose to capture under your bill?

[Julie Miville-Dechêne]

No.

I don't really get your question in the sense that there are two different things. You know, scenes of nudity or scenes of love are not the same as sexually explicit material. It has been defined by the criminal court. It's been refined by the jurisprudence.

We're talking here about the equivalent of pornography. It's just that the expression used in the Criminal Code is “sexually explicit material”. It's the same thing.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

The worry is that the wording of the bill as it's currently presented is overly broad and will capture these areas of content that are widely available in Canada.

[Julie Miville-Dechêne]

This is the definition in the Criminal Code. There's a definition of pornography. It's “sexually explicit material”. If you don't use this definition, what else do you use?

The idea here is to protect the children, the minors, from pornography. This is the tool we have that has been of service for decades on that matter.

[Iqwinder Gaheer, Liberal, Mississauga—Malton, ON]

Sure. As this bill was being drafted, and the language was being drafted, were there any consultations done, or any sort of work done to ensure that content that's not supposed to be covered is not covered?