Senator Gold: This was language that our office here in the Senate developed. You will know now for the last three years that when I am asked questions in Question Period, I answer on behalf of the government. It’s not my role to answer in my personal capacity. You can fairly assume that the language that we developed here represents a position that is acceptable to the government. Otherwise, I wouldn’t have put it in a motion.

As the Senate, we have the power to amend motions, to vote for them or reject them. I have no comment on your question. There have been no — and even if there were, it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to share this.

I am saying that I believe that this motion, the heart of which is to propose that we accept the message from the House — the addition that we included was to give the Senate the ability to be on record in this motion for the motion to be read in the House of Commons so that the members of the House understand what the position of the Senate is and that we take note.

We think that this will strengthen the assurances and, back to Senator Quinn’s point, we hope that it will provide some additional assurances to those who are still skeptical of governments. That is a feature of our modern politics.

It will also figure into interpretations. As one of our former colleagues reminded us regularly, courts and others take legislative history, and especially Senate pronouncements, into account when they are interpreting legislation. I think this adds one more element into the point that I have been trying to make that the government is seriously not involved and has no intention of scoping in user-generated content.

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: It was moved by the Honourable Senator Pate, seconded by the Honourable Senator Dean, that this bill be read the second time.

Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, I wish to draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the following Members of Parliament: Anju Dhillion, Pam Damoff and Ya’ara Saks. With them are representatives of women’s shelters in Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal. They are the guests of the Honourable Senator Dalphond.

On behalf of all honourable senators, I welcome you to the Senate of Canada.

Senator Boisvenu: Yes. Quebec passed Bill 24. At the federal level, a Liberal member was able to get the House to pass Bill C-233, which deals with domestic violence. In his speech, Senator Dalphond pointed out that not one of the 800 women in Spain wearing an electronic bracelet was murdered.

Had this bill been passed five or ten years ago, had it saved one, two, five or ten women from a violent death by an intimate partner, would this bill have been worthwhile?

[English]

Senator Boisvenu: I have another question.

[English]

Senator Boisvenu: Senator Pate, at this time the Criminal Code only provides for the use of an electronic bracelet in two circumstances: cases of terrorism and cases where an individual has committed a fairly serious crime and there’s a concern that they will flee the country. The Criminal Code doesn’t authorize the use of an electronic bracelet in any other case.

Wouldn’t you agree that we must expand the Criminal Code to include violent men if we know they would commit murder or endanger the life of their spouse or former spouse? Should the Criminal Code be amended to include another case in addition to the two types of cases I mentioned?

[English]

Senator Pate: I am not sure if this was your question, but I agree with you.

Too often, when women come forward and talk about the violence that is a very real threat for them, they know, because they live it — it is a very real threat — it is not believed. That is the crux, in my humble opinion, as to why you and all of us are continuing to try and move on these issues. It is not the fact that it is not a violent offence. It is the fact that it is brought down to a he-said-she-said situation. The violence is minimized. The woman isn’t believed. There are racial reasons why. There are gendered reasons why. There are economic reasons why. I do not think that that is fair. I do not agree with that, but that is fundamentally why these tools are not used, because they are violent offences, and who knows better than the person who is experiencing the violence, as we both know from the many, many people — too many people — whom we have walked with and too many of whom are no longer with us.

Senator Dupuis: Thank you for your speech, Senator Dalphond. My question has to do with the preamble of this bill, which refers to the fact that the sterilization of persons without their consent is a legacy of systemic discrimination. Can you invite the members of the committee who are going to study the bill to look at the practical ways in which the systemic aspect of this discrimination will be dealt with since we are talking about individual procedures being carried out by doctors —

Hon. Leo Housakos: I’d like to adjourn the debate in my name.

Hon. Leo Housakos: It’s not we who are impugning the Prime Minister’s integrity, government leader; it’s his lack of action on a very serious subject that is calling into question his integrity and judgment.

Senator Gold, news broke yesterday that the FBI arrested two people who were operating a secret police station in New York City on behalf of the communist regime in Beijing. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, the two individuals conspired to work as agents of the Chinese Communist Party and took orders from the regime in order to track down and silence Chinese dissidents living in the United States.

Senator Gold, we know that we have several of those clandestine police stations also operating right here in Canada in violation of Canadian sovereignty and Canadian law. As a matter of fact, one of the individuals arrested by the FBI yesterday had photos on his phone of one of those illegal stations operating right here in Canada.

Senator Gold, do we know if this individual was here in Canada? Has the RCMP taken steps to question this individual in connection to the stations in Canada? Also, can you tell me why no charges have been laid yet in any of these Canadian cases? Was anyone expelled from Canada as a result of our investigation? Have there been any consequences against the communist operatives who are undertaking similar efforts right here in Canada?

Senator Housakos: You are right, government leader: There were many questions in my question. The reason for that is because the questions keep piling up because we’re not getting any concrete answers, just like I didn’t get any in that answer just now.

Senator Gold, part of the allegations against the two individuals is that they targeted Falun Gong, for instance, by rounding up members of the Chinese diaspora and busing them to various locations to counter-protests for Falun Gong demonstrations, with the Chinese consulate paying each of those individuals $60.

That sounds eerily familiar to what is alleged to have taken place at a certain Liberal nomination meeting, doesn’t it?

Other allegations are the previously mentioned two operatives would track down Chinese dissidents living in the U.S. and threaten them and their families in order to force them to return to China to be arrested by communist authorities there. Again, that is exactly in line with what we’ve heard from Canadians of Chinese descent.

So why, Senator Gold, is your government not moving to do more to protect such people here in Canada? You say you don’t want the diaspora communities to feel afraid. The Prime Minister has said that on many occasions. They are already afraid, and your government is doing nothing about it. You’re more concerned about protecting the very people that Canadians of Chinese descent are afraid of.

When will this Prime Minister stop vacillating on the question of foreign influence from Beijing?

Hon. Mary Coyle: Senator Gold, as you know, today is a very sad anniversary for all Canadians. Three years ago today, Canada’s worst mass shooting occurred in my home province of Nova Scotia, senselessly ending the lives of 22 innocent people, including a highly competent and valued member of the RCMP, Heidi Stevenson, from my hometown of Antigonish.

You will recall that not long after the initial shock of that tragedy, several of us representing our province in this chamber called upon the provincial and federal governments to launch a full inquiry. The recommendations of that inquiry, recently published in the final report of the Mass Casualty Commission, call for substantive and systematic reform of the RCMP in order to prevent more of the kind of devastating tragedies that we witnessed in Nova Scotia in April 2020.

Of the commission’s 130 recommendations, over 60 were directed at the RCMP. The message from the commissioner says:

The future of the RCMP and of provincial policing requires focused re-evaluation. We need to rethink the role of the police in a wider ecosystem of public safety. . . .

The message goes on to say:

Most important, the RCMP must finally undergo the fundamental change called for in so many previous reports. . . .

In recognition of that imperative, Senator Harder has introduced his Senate inquiry on the role and mandate of the RCMP.

Senator Gold, could you tell us how and when the government plans to respond to the calls to action of the Mass Casualty Commission for major reforms of the RCMP? Concern has been raised that it’s unrealistic to expect the RCMP themselves to lead that reform.

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for your question.

First and foremost, I think I speak for all of us that our hearts go out to and that we continue to grieve with the families and the communities of Portapique and Truro.

As you pointed out, senator, the Mass Casualty Commission’s final report lays out a road map for reforming the RCMP. As you would know, the government has established an implementation body that will prioritize and support the implementation of those recommendations. They include strengthening the oversight of the RCMP, strengthening our laws banning assault-style firearms and addressing the root causes of gun crime through supports for mental health services for Canadians.

To your last point, the government is working very closely with the RCMP to reform the institution so that we can prevent, to the fullest extent of our ability, another mass shooting of this kind from ever occurring again.

Hon. Jean-Guy Dagenais: My question is for the Leader of the Government in the Senate. The former finance minister, Bill Morneau, has criticized Prime Minister Trudeau’s decisions regarding the assistance programs brought in during the pandemic. The Auditor General of Canada has also said that, of the $100 billion allocated to these programs, $27 billion was likely overpaid to individuals and businesses during the pandemic and remains unaudited.

More recently, despite warnings from politicians and the Parliamentary Budget Officer, the Prime Minister went ahead with his dental program that will provide $630 to families even if their child hasn’t been to the dentist.

Prime Minister Trudeau is failing in his financial responsibilities, probably to please the NDP, which is keeping him in power. However, instead of listening to serious advice from people like Bill Morneau, Karen Hogan and Yves Giroux, the Prime Minister continues to waste our tax dollars.

Can you explain why?

Hon. Marc Gold (Government Representative in the Senate): Thank you for the question.

With all due respect, honourable senator, this is not a matter of wastefulness, far from it.

As I’ve already explained several times, when faced with the COVID-19 crisis, the government, with the support of this chamber and the members of the other place, made the decision to act quickly to ensure that Canadians had the support they needed. That was the right decision because we got through the pandemic in a good socio-economic position.

That being said, it is true that some problems could have been foreseen, and the government and the departments are now working to recover, if possible, amounts that were unfortunately paid out in circumstances that weren’t anticipated by the spirit of the programs.

Hon. Marty Klyne: Senator Gold, this week marks National Soil Conservation Week. Soil sustains our woods and grasslands and their plants and animals. It is a vital resource for Canadian livelihoods, including construction, forestry and, of course, agricultural and food security.

Unfortunately, this precious resource doesn’t always receive the recognition it deserves. That’s why I’m proud that our Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry is conducting a study on soil health — the first study in the Parliament specifically on soil in 39 years.

Senator Gold, as we study this important issue, can you update the chamber on what steps the federal government is taking to collaborate and support stakeholders across the country to protect soil health in Canada?

Hon. Yonah Martin (Deputy Leader of the Opposition): Honourable senators, I’m pleased to rise to speak to Bill S-210 at third reading. It has been a long road for this legislation, and I want to commend Senator Miville-Dechêne for her tenacity in working with international experts to develop solutions to this growing problem, for continuing to push forward through the legislative hurdles and for her openness to improvements along the way.

The individual and societal consequences of children viewing sexually explicit content, particularly violent material, are becoming more and more apparent as studies continue to surface. We also know that children are accessing more of this content at younger ages — as young as six years old. The overall number of children who regularly view online pornography is on the rise.

As you may know, Bill S-210 is a carefully finessed and improved version of the previous iteration, Bill S-203. Both bills were studied at the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs and received thoughtful study with expert testimony about the profound harms done to developing brains when accessing the sexually explicit, violent and misogynistic content that is all too common on pornography websites.

In their brief to the Senate Legal Committee, the Canadian Centre for Child Protection stated:

Research has highlighted multiple negative impacts on children from viewing pornography, which include:

- Difficulty forming healthy relationships

- Harmful sexual beliefs and behaviours. . . . A distorted belief that women and girls are always sexually available, and . . . harmful attitudes and beliefs regarding sexual consent.

- A normalization of sexual harm. . . .

By now, we have heard the statistics. Most are hard to hear, and many are truly hard to believe. Dr. Gail Dines, professor emerita of sociology and founder and president of Culture Reframed, a non-profit that develops research-driven programs for parents and professionals on how to build resilience and resistance in young people to pornography, testified at the Senate Legal Committee in support of the legislation.

Dr. Dines has done groundbreaking work in this field, and the latest data and research she has compiled paints a heartbreaking picture. Her work centres around what she calls “the crisis,” which she outlines as follows:

In the absence of comprehensive, competent sex education, porn serves as the major form of sex ed for millions of kids. And what are kids learning? That degradation, humiliation, and violence are central to relationships, intimacy, and sex.

Culture Reframed has highlighted some staggering facts which illustrate the magnitude of the problem. Porn sites get more visitors each month than Netflix, Amazon and Twitter combined. About one third of all web downloads in the U.S. are porn-related. Pornhub, self-described as “the world’s leading free porn site,” received 42 billion visits in 2019.

In a content analysis of best-selling and most-rented porn films, researchers found that 88% of analyzed scenes contained violent physical aggression, and 50% of parents underestimate how much porn their teens have seen. A meta-analysis of 22 studies between 1978 and 2014 from seven different countries concluded that pornography consumption is associated with an increased likelihood of committing acts of verbal or physical sexual aggression, regardless of age.

Another meta-analysis found “an overall significant positive association between pornography use and attitudes supporting violence against women.” In a study of U.S. college men, researchers found that 83% reported seeing mainstream pornography and that those who did were more likely to say they would commit rape or sexual assault if they knew they wouldn’t be caught than men who hadn’t seen porn in the last 12 months.

Lastly, 30 peer-reviewed studies since 2011 revealed that pornography use has negative and detrimental impacts on the brain. Our laws in Canada reflect the severity of the impact on the young brain when it comes to accessing pornography in the real world. However, there is a large disconnect when it comes to regulating the online world with respect to the protection of children. When one considers how difficult it would be for a child to get an R-rated film, get into an R-rated film or purchase an adult magazine, it is unfathomable that the same child can access violent, hard-core pornography in a single click. As Senator Miville-Dechêne has said, in the real world, access to strip clubs and pornographic cinema is restricted to those 18 and over. Bill S-210 essentially seeks to apply the same rule in the virtual world.

Bill S-210, if passed, would require porn sites to perform effective age verification of their users. The bill makes it an offence for organizations, not individuals, to make available sexually explicit material on the internet to a young person for commercial purposes. To avoid sanctions, pornographic websites must implement an age-verification mechanism prescribed by regulation. The law provides for maximum fines of $250,000 for a first offence. However, as witnesses pointed out, these fines are unlikely to be imposed because most porn sites are based internationally, making it difficult to enforce by Canadian law.

Bill S-210 accounts for this, providing an administrative enforcement process in which a designated agency can apply to a Federal Court to order the blocking of contravening websites. The process would apply after a detailed notice was sent and after the expiry of a 20-day period. In practice, this would mean that porn sites not abiding by the law could be blocked even if they are not based in Canada. It is important to note that the provisions apply only to organizations and not to individuals to avoid capturing sex workers and to directly target commercial distributors.

Most of the concerns raised in the previous version of this bill have been rectified in this version. However, a few witnesses who testified before the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee remained concerned about the issue of privacy, and, therefore, the constitutionality of the bill. There were specific concerns raised with respect to the type of age-verification technology that may be utilized and how it may impact the privacy and security of adults who choose to legally access online pornography. Questions were raised, for example, about how personal data would be collected and stored.

The Canadian Bar Association called for a strengthening of privacy protections in the bill. Similarly, Keith Jansa, the executive director of the CIO Strategy Council, called for enhanced privacy protections, while making specific recommendations as to the language that should be added to the bill for clarification. He specified that the words “effective,” “trustworthy,” “privacy preserving” and “age-verification” method be included in the legislation.

Senator Miville-Dechêne moved an amendment to this effect during clause-by-clause consideration in committee.

The amendment specifies that the Governor-in-Council must consider, before prescribing an age-verification method, whether the method is reliable; maintains user privacy and protects user personal information; collects and uses personal information solely for age-verification purposes, except to the extent required by law; destroys any personal information collected for age-verification purposes once the verification is completed; and generally complies with best practices in the fields of age verification and privacy protection.

While this amendment may not satisfy everyone who remains concerned about the constitutionality of this proposal, it is relevant that our esteemed colleagues on the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee vetted both versions of this legislation. After careful, thoughtful consideration, the committee ultimately decided to proceed with the bill as amended.

The committee recognized the harms associated with this growing problem and our role as policy-makers in offering the best possible solution. If a constitutional challenge were to arise, the courts, as always, would be best placed to handle that discussion.

Honourable senators, while young persons’ access to harmful, sexually explicit material is on the rise, so is the level of awareness and openness to call out the harms of the porn industry.

Last year, Billie Eilish, an internationally known singer-songwriter with hundreds of millions of social media followers made headlines when she appeared on the “Howard Stern Show.” She spoke out about a very deep, personal struggle she had endured following repeated exposure to pornography beginning at the age of 11. She spoke about the devastating impact this has had on her ability to develop relationships with others. In a poignant moment, she said, “I think it really destroyed my brain and I feel incredibly devastated that I was exposed to so much porn.”

The words “destroyed my brain” may sound hyperbolic, but there is a multitude of conclusive research on the harmful impact of pornography on an adolescent and pre-adolescent brain. Girls who view porn have higher rates of self-harm and are more vulnerable to sexual exploitation and trafficking.

For boys, as you may expect, the harm tends to manifest as sexual aggression toward women, dating violence in high school and a difficulty in forging intimate relationships with women in real life.

And, regardless of gender, young people who view pornography have higher rates of anxiety and depression.

The severity of this issue cannot be overstated.

While this legislation will not solve the problem in its entirety, it is a critical step toward reducing the number of children impacted and the level of exposure.

We recently had the opportunity to have a version of this proposal enacted expeditiously through Bill C-11. Senator Miville-Dechêne introduced this as an amendment during clause-by-clause consideration at the committee’s study. The amendment passed in committee and again at third reading. This could have been a major step forward for this movement, yet, sadly, the Trudeau government struck this provision from the bill.

This makes the swift passage of Bill S-210 all the more important.

As a former educator and mother of a daughter, I know how impressionable young minds are, and how critical the early years are in shaping their development. For our children, and for future generations, let us use the powerful and privileged role we have in this chamber to treat this matter with the urgency it requires and make this necessary change in our law.

I will leave you with some thoughtful words from Dr. Gail Dines’ testimony before the Senate Legal Committee:

When I first started this work over 30 years ago, to buy any pornography material, you had to prove that you were over 18. As pornography moved online around 2000, not only did it become more hardcore, cruel, violent and abusive to women, but it became universally accessible. It is now just a click away.

How have we reached this point where kids as young as 7 are accessing pornographic materials that show women being sexually abused for commercial purposes? Where are the policy-makers and professionals tasked with safeguarding children? Indeed, where are all those adults with a vested interest in the well-being of the next generation?

The good news is that a lot of them seem to be here in Canada, taking a bold and courageous stand to support a bill to stop kids from being pulled into the world of hardcore porn.

Honourable senators, let us take this bold and courageous stance and make Canada a leader in protecting youth from the destructive, violent, misogynistic content that is perpetuating irreparable harm. Bill S-210 is only a step — but an important one — in the right direction, and it has the potential to have a profound impact on our children and future generations.

Thank you.

[Translation]

Hon. Donald Neil Plett (Leader of the Opposition): Senator Gold, last week, the Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation’s entire board of directors, along with its president and CEO, resigned in the aftermath of a $200,000 gift from the Communist Party in Beijing. When asked about the resignations last Tuesday, Senator Gold, the Prime Minister said, “It’s a foundation in my father’s name that I have no direct or indirect connection with.”

This is a ludicrous statement from Prime Minister Trudeau. His government can appoint members to the foundation, as can his family. The National Post reported that the foundation used his name in marketing materials as late as September 2014 — a year and a half after he became the leader of the Liberals. His brother is directly involved in the foundation and the $200,000 gift.

Leader, why does the Prime Minister continue to claim that there is no connection when this is absolutely not the case?

Senator Gold: Thank you for your question.

Words do matter. They matter in public discourse, and they matter in this place. The degradation of the language being used to impugn our institutions — institutions upon which this country depends — is deeply disturbing and should be deeply disturbing to all Canadians.

I repeat that the Prime Minister has not had involvement with the foundation since he became leader. Attempts to impugn its integrity or his integrity are unfortunate and, respectfully, ill‑advised.

The Special Rapporteur, the Honourable David Johnston, has been mandated to advise the government with regard to the steps that might be required, and the government has pledged to honour or accept his recommendations. We’ll know those forthwith.