Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne moved third reading of Bill S-210, An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material, as amended.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today at third reading stage of Bill S-210 on protecting young persons from exposure to pornography. I’ve been the sponsor of this initiative for the past two and a half years, and this is the second time that the Senate is debating the bill at third reading. The bill we’re studying was improved by this process.

I’d like to extend my heartfelt thanks to all members of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, especially the then chair, Senator Mobina Jaffer. I also wish to thank the critic of Bill S-210, Senator Yonah Martin, our law clerk, Marc-André Roy and, in my office, legal experts To-Yen Tran and Jérôme Lussier, for their invaluable work. They believed in the bill.

I supported this bill with conviction because it appealed to my many identities.

I am a mother and my two children are part of the generation that had access to the first free pornography sites. Previously, explicit sexual content was for adults only; suddenly, there was nothing to prevent children from accessing pornography on the internet. At that time, just like today, parents were powerless to address this boundless access and total lack of controls.

I am also a feminist, and I’m concerned that young people’s exposure to pornography undermines gender equality in their intimate relationships. Porn too often encourages and normalizes sexist practices of domination that directly contradict the values we wish to instill in young men and women. According to a report released last week by the U.K. Children’s Commissioner, 47% of young people in England believe that girls expect sex to involve physical aggression, and 42% stated that most girls enjoy acts of sexual aggression.

Finally, for me, who has always believed in the importance of equal and comprehensive sex education in schools, it is clear that the avalanche of porn available online is having harmful effects on young people. Among other problems, teenagers who consume pornography develop unrealistic expectations about their bodies, what is expected of them and what they are supposed to look for in love.

At its core, Bill S-210 is based on the simple idea of protecting children from pornography in the virtual world as we protect them from pornography in the real world.

Twenty years ago, pornography was still largely restricted to adults, even on the internet. The huge influx of free porn sites has been a total game-changer. These companies want to maximize their viewership and they make no attempt to control the age of their users. For example, it is estimated that 14% of the people using Pornhub, a Montreal-based company, are minors who have unlimited access to millions and millions of porn videos that are often violent and degrading.

This is a pressing public health issue because an entire generation is getting their sex education by watching these videos. Studies have demonstrated the risk of trauma, addiction, distorted views of consent and one’s own desires, young girls’ misconceptions and even erectile dysfunction. There is an urgent need to act.

The major innovation contained in Bill S-210 would be to require porn sites to verify a user’s age, failing which they will be subject to a criminal offence. Most importantly, delinquent porn sites, even if they are based outside Canada, would be subject to a blocking order in Canada.

Again, for adults, Bill S-210 doesn’t change anything. All content legally available today will continue to be, once an age verification has occurred, which takes only a few minutes. At the recommendation of a witness, I proposed an amendment during the study in committee that enhances privacy protection for users and their personal information in the age verification mechanisms that will be clarified in the regulations. That amendment was adopted.

[English]

Of the 30 witnesses and briefs received by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, 25 supported the bill, including a majority of the legal experts who testified.

The bill has the support of pediatricians, psychiatrists and sexologists, but also of many parents who need help to protect their children. Research in the United Kingdom and Australia show about 80% of parents agree with age verification to stop children from watching porn.

The bill passed unopposed at the committee stage. However, we had interesting and, at times, difficult debates about the effectiveness of the proposed measures.

It won’t be easy, of course. This is a new legislative field, technology changes regularly and some people seem to think that the internet should be exempt from any laws and regulations that apply in the real world.

But that’s no reason to give up. Other countries have acted or are in the process of doing so. Germany and France have already passed laws similar to Bill S-210. The British government is also considering legislation that would require age verification for porn sites. This is a global issue, and Canada must do its part. The more countries that hold porn sites accountable, the more effective the measures will be.

Here is how the Canadian Centre for Child Protection sums up its support for the bill:

The digital nature of online pornography does not and should not mean that society abrogates its responsibilities to children and youth. It makes no sense that a 14-year-old cannot watch an R-rated movie with simulated sex scenes in a movie theatre but can easily access pornography on her phone. We cannot let adult websites dictate the sexual education of Canada’s children.

Like the other members of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, I am aware that Bill S-210 is part of a larger and more complex puzzle. The same applies to alcohol, drugs, gambling and other harmful content or activities from which we want to protect children. There is a role for parents, for education and for legislation. Age verification is part of the solution; it is not the whole solution.

In 2020, the Australian Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal Affairs published a report entitled, Protecting the age of innocence, which focused on age verification for online porn. Here is one of its main conclusions:

The Committee acknowledges that age verification is not a silver bullet — some websites containing pornographic material may not be captured, and some determined young people may find ways to circumvent the system. However, when it comes to protecting children from the very real harms associated with exposure to online pornography, the Committee’s strong view is that we should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

You will not be surprised to know that I fully concur with our Australian colleagues.

And for this reason, I believe that Bill S-210 should be sent to the House of Commons where the debate can continue and be enriched. I urge you all to vote for this bill.

Thank you.

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: I rise at second reading of Bill C-11, the Online Streaming Act, which the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications is currently studying. Some 30 witnesses have already been heard.

In the time that I have been a senator, I have never seen a bill elicit such passionate reactions and divergent views.

On the one hand, many representatives of the cultural sector are urging us to pass the bill as written or to strengthen it. On the other, as my colleague Donna Dasko stated, our inboxes are full of form letters from citizens who fear for their freedom of expression and their freedom to listen to and watch whatever they want on the internet.

As for me, I do not believe that Canadians’ rights and freedoms are threatened by this bill. However, I do recognize that in a polarized social and political context, where some people do not hesitate to demonize their opponents and twist their words to whip up their supporters, some words have become radioactive. The word “algorithm” is one of them.

There are also concerns about some grey areas in the bill and the regulations that are to follow.

The more I hear the objections of stakeholders regarding Bill C-11, the more I realize that there are several interrelated debates. It is not just about being for or against the bill, as is the case with simpler legislation.

Bill C-11 is basically an adjustment exercise. It adjusts Canada’s broadcasting policy to bring it in line with the new technological environment.

In the past, music and audiovisual programs were broadcast via radio and traditional television networks that held licences and were subject to many rules, including the well-known quotas. The government was thus able to ensure that our country’s artists and cultural diversity were supported and showcased.

As we know, today, a significant portion of Canadians access music and programs via online platforms, often foreign platforms, that are not subject to any regulations. For the first time last year in Quebec, subscriptions to online platforms exceeded traditional cable subscriptions, with 71% of adult Quebecers having paid subscriptions to online streaming sites. That is a lot. We are seeing the same trend with music, where people are increasingly turning toward streaming platforms on which only 8% of the music listened to by Quebecers is French music.

The result is that our artists are losing visibility and the government no longer has the means of showcasing Canadian culture and content, including that of French and Indigenous people and other minority groups. In the wild west of digital platforms, the biggest players make the rules and, as we know, the biggest players are American companies.

There are two possible ways to deal with this new reality. The first is to do nothing and pretend that, in the internet era, the government has no role to play. The government could stop regulating altogether. The regulatory framework would have to be phased out gradually as the public moves to digital platforms. In the end, within a few years, all programs and music consumed by Canadians would be determined solely by market forces. The problem with this approach is that it means giving up on defending the values of Canada’s cultural identity, to the benefit of the web giants.

Officials from YouTube and TikTok appeared before the committee to reaffirm that the business model that has made them successful is working just fine. Their message was simple. What they call their secret recipe works, as evidenced by the success of Canadian YouTubers and singers.

Beyond these generalities, however, there is little information. What percentage of audiences do these Canadian artists get? How is this distributed between artists, content types and across the country? YouTube doesn’t have any precise statistics to share. In fact, YouTube officials don’t really care where the creators are from, because according to them, we live in a global world, so we should take their word for it and hope for the best.

However, the survival of our francophone culture cannot depend on only one or two successful artists like Charlotte Cardin and Coeur de pirate, whose names we hear over and over. People need to be able to discover and listen to others.

The second option proposed in Bill C-11 is a compromise. It involves bringing new platforms into the Canadian regulatory framework, but not in the same way as traditional broadcasters. The platforms will have to help fund production of Canadian content and will have to showcase Canadian content while continuing to offer a rich and diverse menu of program options. The CRTC will have the complex task of tailoring the rules to each foreign player. At least, that is the promise. I’ll be frank; it will be a mammoth undertaking, and I fear the CRTC will be overwhelmed.

I personally support the broad strokes of Bill C-11. Canadians will retain the best of digital platforms, that is, the freedom to listen to and watch what they want, based on their preferences, while giving our artists a chance to carve out a place for themselves and find their audience in this new broadcasting ecosystem.

However, as is often the case, the devil is in the details. Here are some of the main issues. The bill delegates a lot of power to the CRTC to make the rules for online platforms and implement Canada’s broadcasting and cultural policy. Many of us think it would have been better for the government to give the CRTC its instructions right now. This kind of feels like handing over a blank cheque.

One of the central issues the CRTC will have to consider is Canadian content. How should we define it now? Are some criteria more important than others? Should the focus be on subject matter, artists or intellectual property in productions? It will be up to the CRTC to review this crucial definition.

Much ink has been spilled about discoverability; it has taken up a lot of bandwidth. The term “discoverability” appears only twice in the legislation, which does not provide further details.

How will discoverability work for Canadian content on digital platforms? Is promoting that content without influencing algorithms and viewers’ or listeners’ choices enough? How will new content requirements differ from the old quota system? A lot of questions remain.

For example, at our brief hearings in June, I asked the chair of the CRTC how he would ensure the discoverability of Canadian content without involving the algorithms. He answered that the platforms themselves would have to change their algorithms to achieve the desired result of having Canadian users consume more Canadian music and shows.

As you can imagine, this answer shocked those who were closely following the hearings. For them, it was proof that algorithms must be changed even if the bill states that the CRTC does not have that authority. Under Bill C-11, the CRTC, and I quote, “shall not make an order . . . that would require the use of a specific computer algorithm.”

I believe that the debate on this specific point is so polarized that it is difficult to come to a conclusion. For example, YouTube and TikTok state that, without changing their algorithms, they go to great lengths to promote Canadian creators, whether through subsidies, programs or revenue sharing. They boast about their efforts and the success of certain Canadian artists.

Why are they worried about Bill C-11 when they will be able to choose how to get results in terms of the Canadian music that is listened to? Is it because only algorithms really have the power to influence the habits of the users of these platforms?

The logic of algorithms is simple. The only content suggested to the customer is similar to what they have watched before in order to keep them watching. How then can we hope for minority cultural content, whether it be French or Indigenous, to be automatically recommended to customers in a predominantly anglophone North America? How can we trust the mathematical algorithms to point to the exception rather than the rule?

Another distinction needs to be made. For artists from English Canada, the playing field is global, whereas for French-speaking Quebec artists, the main market is Quebec. These artists create in a beautiful language, but it is a minority language.

By making the algorithms off limits, as the platforms want, are we giving in on the main issue and allowing Canadian culture and artists to be steamrolled by American giants? However, if we tinker with the algorithms, we risk harming the lesser-known artists that we want to support, since they could be downgraded by the existing system if customers do not accept the recommendation in question. It is quite the dilemma.

Personally, I am of the opinion that the foreign players in our market should be responsible for finding innovative solutions so that we can see ourselves in this flood of global content. I understand that they feel rushed and that they do not want to lose users, but let’s remember that Canadian broadcasters are subject to much heavier and rigid regulations regarding Canadian content.

We also have to be mindful not to rely on what other countries are doing. This specific aspect of the bill, in other words the idea of requiring platforms such as Spotify, YouTube and others to showcase Canadian works, is a world first; it has never been done anywhere else. Many have thought about it, but Canada is the first to try. This is uncharted territory.

Another issue that raises debate has to do with social media, YouTube in particular, which offers both content for users to download and commercial content. I believe it is possible to further clarify in the text of this legislation what commercial content is in order to reassure content creators.

Obviously, although the purpose of Bill C-11 is to develop Canadian culture and artistic expression, it has several economic dimensions.

At the heart of these debates are Canadian organizations such as producers, broadcasters and unions. There is a mix of corporate, protectionist and other interests behind the requests to amend the bill.

For example, independent producers want to keep the advantage they’ve had for the past 30 years under the Broadcasting Act. They want to be given priority. On the other hand, broadcasters want their own production companies to be treated as independent businesses.

It’s not necessarily a matter of promoting more or less Canadian content; it’s a matter of promoting certain players and changing the power dynamic. This bickering among the players in Canada ultimately undermines efforts to come together.

Beyond these more specific issues, Bill C-11 also brings out different political, cultural and economic views and sometimes pits them against one another.

As I look at my colleague, Senator Housakos, I can see that division here.

In this new global cultural market in which Canadian creators have access to the entire world but are also competing with the entire world, should we be trying to protect our creators from this competition or finding ways to help them stand out? Is it possible to give our creators, artists and tradespeople a chance without needlessly restricting the Canadian public’s options and preferences?

Clearly, I don’t have all the answers. While I agree that Canada must protect its cultural sovereignty, including francophone culture, my duty is to assess whether this bill can be improved and, if so, how.

My personal belief is still that culture is not just another commodity. It deserves substantial support from governments, particularly in cases of a minority culture, such as French in North America.

I’m extremely concerned about the underlying trends in Quebec, particularly in terms of the music people listen to. We can’t surrender all of our cultural sovereignty and national identity to algorithms and market forces. It would be akin to cultural suicide in the medium term, the result of a voluntary blindness to the reality of the power imbalance that is at play. In that regard, I believe that Bill C-11 has a legitimate political objective.

That said, we need to find compromises and modern solutions that also respond to the desire of Canadians and Quebecers to participate in and consume cultural products from around the world, without unduly limiting their choices. Defending and promoting our distinct identity is more valid and timely than ever, but we can’t expect a return to the past, to a time when the availability of cultural content was strictly controlled.

Our challenge is to strike the right balance.

Thank you.

[English]

Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne moved second reading of Bill S-210, An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material.

She said: Honourable senators, I rise today at second reading stage of Bill S-210, An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material.

I introduced the initial version of this bill more than a year ago. The now-defunct Bill S-203 was passed in the Senate, which was a huge step forward. However, that bill died on the Order Paper when the election was called.

We used this long break to conduct more consultations and present a new and improved version of the bill. This bill restricts the scope of the regime and further clarifies the intentions.

I want to briefly remind you why I wanted to take action to protect minors, children who are accessing porn sites that are increasingly hardcore and extreme without being asked for proof of age.

There are reportedly close to 4 and a half million porn sites around the world. The ecosystem changed around 10 years ago when the platforms chose to use content uploaded by users and made that content free. In turn, this removed any barriers to accessing these sites.

Kids are first exposed to pornography at age 11, on average.

These free sites derive their income from advertisements and video games of a sexual nature that target young people. In Canada, 40% of high school boys have seen pornography online, 28% search for it at least once a day or once a week, and 7% of girls say they have watched it. That was before the pandemic. It is worse now.

Renowned pediatrician Megan Harrison, from the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario, provided compelling testimony before the Senate Legal Committee. She said the following:

The developing brain is absolutely affected by the images that it sees. As they grow and develop, their brain continues to change at an impressive speed. Neuroplasticity is a process by which our brains create new neural networks and pathways, which means it is constantly optimizing itself. . . .

Neuroplasticity is at its highest in children and even more so in adolescents. This means that repeated behaviours, repeated images, repeated ideas and values that a brain sees and internalizes during childhood and adolescence can have lasting impacts, as compared to adults, where the brain might be less affected.

The pediatrician went on to say:

The teens I see who have accessed these sites either accidentally or on purpose — and it’s very, very easy to do and the images are very disturbing — have so much confusion about their bodies and what is expected of them sexually, what is normal, all sorts of things.

Quebec sexologist Marie-Christine Pinel also made troubling observations about young people in her practice. She said:

I am facing emerging and disastrous phenomena: a resurgence of domination, performance anxiety that generates pain on penetration and erectile dysfunction, an explosion of requests for cosmetic genital surgery; all linked to the influence of pornography.

Scientific research is making more and more worrisome connections between the consumption of pornography and the health or behaviour of young people. When adolescents frequently view pornography, it can lead to compulsive consumption, create unrealistic expectations about expected activities, generate fear and anxiety, damage their self-esteem by distorting their perception of their own bodies, cause symptoms of depression and impair social functioning.

What do young people, boys in particular, absorb from what they see? Repeated consumption of pornography by adolescents reinforces gender stereotypes and perpetuates sexist beliefs and the objectification of women.

In total, 37% of online porn scenes depict violence against one or more women. This distorted view of sexuality can traumatize children and teens and damage their own self-image and their understanding of sexual relationships.

[English]

According to the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, and I quote:

Adult pornography is not only harmful to a child’s developing brain, it is also used to groom children for sexual abuse and to normalize sexual activity.

Just this week, in the U.K., the Children’s Commissioner was quoted saying that she had seen “the hugely damaging effects of porn on children, including a young girl who took her own life.” She added:

Kids are seeing things that warp what they think real sexual relationships are like. I’ve had girls say to me that during their first kiss with their boyfriend he’s tried to strangle her because he’s seen it on a porn video.

I have to say this disturbs me greatly. Despite the scandal uncovered a year ago, targeting MindGeek, a Montreal-based company, porn sites still do not verify the age of those who view their videos, even as sexual exploitation of children was uncovered on many platforms. For these platforms, it is a matter of competition, because losing customers, even minors, means fewer clicks and less revenue. This explains why porn platforms are apparently willing to implement age verification measures as long as they are imposed on the whole industry.

This is something government can do. Clearly, self-regulation has been a failure. Legal porn sites are supposed to be for adults only, but these platforms only ask users to check a box stating that they are 18. For all those reasons, we must resolve to control the access of minors to porn in the digital world as we do in the real world. Checking the age of users is a public health issue. Harm to children exposed to sexually explicit material is a real and urgent social concern.

Let’s talk about the bill before you. It is very focused. As stated in section 4, the objective is to protect the mental health of young people, and more broadly to protect Canadians, young people and women in particular, from the harmful repercussions of porn. It is a public safety issue. In section 5 the bill criminalized making sexually explicit material available to a minor for commercial purposes. The bill sets a maximum fine of $250,000 for a first offence. For those who might be concerned about the risk of censoring educational or artistic material, I want to be clear. It expressly states that sexually explicit material with a legitimate purpose related to science, medicine, education or the arts is not covered by this prohibition of the law. So there is no censorship or prudishness. I have always strongly defended the importance of comprehensive sex education in school.

In addition, case law shows that the term “sexually explicit material,” as used in the Criminal Code, cannot be applied to any nude scenes or tribal sexual contexts like has been mentioned in this house. In its Sharpe decision, the Supreme Court concluded explicit sexual activity refers to acts involving nudity or intimate sexual activity represented in a graphic and unambiguous fashion intended to cause sexual stimulation to some viewers.

The Superior Court of Ontario has also held that the proximity of the camera to the genital or anal region, the duration, the closeups and the importance of these images in a film are additional criteria that help define a porn video — that is one where the dominant feature is representation with a sexual purpose.

Who is targeted by this offence? In the prior wording of the bill, a company or an individual could be prosecuted for distributing porn material to minors without verifying age. However, this wording could have undesirable side effects, as was mentioned by some sex workers. In light of this, we have revised the scope of the offence to exclude individuals and only target organizations as defined in section 2 of the Criminal Code. The word “organization” includes corporate bodies, society companies, firms, partnerships or associations of persons created for a common purpose. They have an operational structure and hold themselves out to the public as such. This approach makes it possible to directly target commercial distributors of porn.

Another significant amendment will better protect the right of porn sites to a full defence. Under the revised bill, the power to send notices to offending sites is given to a designated authority and not to the minister. This should minimize the risk of political intervention.

If the platforms, whether Canadian or foreign, do not comply after a reasonable period of time, the designated authority can seek a court order to block the site in question. This is the most efficient enforcement mechanism against foreign websites. Blocking a site means ordering internet service providers, such as Bell or Vidéotron, to use any means at their disposal to prevent their customers from accessing the site. The result is a blocked URL address, domain name or IP address. Internet service providers have told us that this kind of blocking is perfectly feasible from a technical standpoint. They are already working with authorities to remove images of sexual exploitation of children that end up on their servers.

So the real question is how should websites check the age of their visitor before they access porn material. This is obviously the crux of the problem. The good news is that technological advances have now made it possible to securely verify the age of online customers. Because technology is constantly evolving, it seems wise to set out the parameters of age verification processes in regulations, so they are not included in my bill.

From the outset, experts agree that age checks should not be done by the porn sites themselves but by specialized third-party service providers. The precaution is essential to prevent porn sites from gaining access to their customers’ personal data. Here is how the Age Verification Providers Association describes the process:

. . . age verification is not identity verification. They’re very separate. What we try to do is have the minimum amount of data used in the first place and then retained going forward. For quite a lot of uses, you wouldn’t need to retain any personal data at all. All you need to know is that person X—and we only know them as ‘X’—has at some point proved, to a certain standard, that they are over a particular age or within a particular age range or they have a particular date of birth.

[Translation]

The simple and fundamental purpose of this bill is to restore some consistency to the actions we are taking as a country to protect our children.

In the real world, people under 18 cannot go to the casino or buy lottery tickets. In the online world, they cannot do that either. It only makes sense.

In the real world, young people cannot buy alcohol or cigarettes. We do not allow them to do that online either. It only makes sense.

Some people seem to believe that even though young people cannot rent a pornographic movie in the real world, they should be able to click on a button and instantly have access to explicit pornographic material in the virtual world. That makes absolutely no sense.

In the past, three objections have been raised against legislation on age verification. Today, I humbly submit that they do not pass scrutiny.

First, it was argued that pornography is protected by guarantees of freedom of expression. That is a fact that no one is disputing, but that does not solve the problem.

In the real world, we limit minors from accessing pornographic material in a perfectly legal and defensible way. Why would such limits be unacceptable when they are applied on the internet?

Courts in Canada and elsewhere had no difficulty accepting the idea that we must protect our children from pornographic content by imposing reasonable limits on its distribution. This reasoning is based in part on the fact that pornography does not deserve the same level of protection as political discourse, for example.

Consider this excerpt from an article by Professor Cass Sunstein, the most quoted legal expert in the United States — a country that certainly does not take freedom of expression lightly. I quote:

The Court has drawn a distinction between speech that may be banned only on the basis of an extremely powerful showing of government interest, and speech that may be regulated on the basis of a far less powerful demonstration of harm. Commercial speech, labor speech, and possibly group libel, for example, fall within the category of “low-value” speech. . . .

Under this approach, or any plausible variation, regulation of pornography need not be justified according to standards applicable to political speech. The effect and intent of pornography, as it is defined here, are to produce sexual arousal, not in any sense to affect the course of self-government. . . .

These considerations suggest a conventional, two-stage argument for the regulation of pornography. First, pornography is entitled to only a lower level of first amendment solicitude. Under any standard, pornography is far afield from the kind of speech conventionally protected by the first amendment. Second, the harms produced by pornographic materials are sufficient to justify regulation.

The U.S. Supreme Court recognized that the state has an interest in safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of minors and that that interest extends to protecting minors from the influence of pornography. The government can therefore regulate its distribution, provided that it does so narrowly without unnecessarily interfering with the right to freedom of speech.

Our own Supreme Court expressed support for this idea in its policy decision on this issue, as follows:

 . . . the kind of expression which is sought to be advanced does not stand on an equal footing with other kinds of expression which directly engage the “core” of the freedom of expression values. . . .

The infringement on freedom of expression is confined to a measure designed to prohibit the distribution of sexually explicit materials accompanied by violence, and those without violence that are degrading or dehumanizing.

As I have already concluded, this kind of expression lies far from the core of the guarantee of freedom of expression. It appeals only to the most base aspect of individual fulfilment, and it is primarily economically motivated.

In conclusion, although pornography is protected by freedom of expression guarantees, it should be relatively simple to justify reasonable regulations for very good reasons.

Under the bill before us, online pornography would remain accessible to all adult Canadians, subject to an automated three- to five-minute age verification process.

I’m not aware of any inalienable right to instant access to pornography anywhere, at any time, by anyone, that would be violated by this modest proposal.

Let’s keep in mind that freedom of expression is not an absolute right, but a right that, according to the Charter, is subject to such reasonable limits as can be justified in a free and democratic society. When we are called upon to balance the rights at stake, protecting the most vulnerable members of our society is crucial and should take precedence over causing a minor inconvenience.

With respect to privacy, the second objection we sometimes hear is that, while it is desirable in theory to regulate minors’ access to online pornography, the means proposed in practice are too broad and infringe on privacy rights. Once again, I humbly submit that this argument does not stand up to scrutiny.

First of all, consider how age verification works in the real world. Today, individuals suspected of being under 18 who want to buy cigarettes, alcohol, lottery tickets or pornographic magazines must show their face and ID to the store cashier. As far as I know, no one is seriously challenging that approach.

In the past, there have been legitimate concerns that providing personal information over the internet could expose people to identity theft or other forms of data exploitation. These are certainly valid concerns.

The good news is that technological advances have resulted in age verification processes that do not involve personal identification. In recent years, we have seen the development of effective, relatively unintrusive technology that provides the least restrictive means possible of protecting young people from the harms of online pornography. Nothing is ever perfect, of course, but privacy can be increasingly assured by data systems that are encrypted or destroyed by the age-verification providers.

As Privacy Commissioner Daniel Therrien said in committee, and I quote:

When it comes to privacy, the risk is generally not eliminated. You try to reduce it as much as possible. I think the structure of the bill is such that you can reduce the risk of privacy breaches without completely eliminating them.

As I mentioned earlier, the bill does not set out the acceptable forms of identification, leaving that to regulations. It is the only way to guarantee that our protections are consistent with best practices and emerging standards.

Then there is the famous parental responsibility. That is a topic I heard a lot about in presenting this bill. It may be the most important aspect. We were told that the responsibility for protecting minors from online pornography should fall to their parents. Again, that argument does not hold water.

Would Canadians like the sale of alcohol, cigarettes and gambling activities to be left to parental supervision only? Would Canadian parents like it if bars, casinos, and strip clubs simply required clients to click a button to enter? Of course not.

For years, we have left it up to parents to control minors’ access to online pornography. We know that this does not work. Many of us have experienced this with our own children. We should keep in mind that not every parent has the same level of digital literacy. If parental controls were working, we would know it, and I can assure you that we would not be here today to speak to this bill.

However, the evidence that the current approach is a failure is not just anecdotal.

A 2018 University of Oxford study suggests that internet filtering tools have practically no impact on the exposure of youth to online pornography, and it went so far as to question whether their limited usefulness justifies their cost.

The truth is that most parents have no idea what their children view on the internet, and they need our help.

A survey conducted by the Canadian Centre for Child Protection indicates that 60% of respondents are very worried about their children being exposed to pornographic or violent images. It is not just parents; pediatricians and specialists are concerned as well. Our many supporters include the Paediatric Society, the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the Association des pédiatres du Québec and several Canadian and international experts. They are all demanding that the government play its part.

[English]

In fact, other countries have already acted or are in the process of doing so to protect minors from this bombardment of pornographic images online.

France adopted legislation a year ago that allows the blocking of porn sites wherever they are in the world if they do not verify the age of their customers. The implementing decree is now in force and the Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel has the authority to request a blocking order from the court.

Germany is even further ahead and has begun the process of blocking access to the four biggest porn sites that have refused to ensure their customers are adults. We’re talking here about xHamster, YouPorn, Pornhub and MyDirtyHobby.

After a first failed attempt in the U.K., a joint parliamentary committee has just completed a pre-study of a draft bill called the Online Safety Bill, which should be tabled shortly. The new bill will impose a duty of care on porn platforms, requiring them to implement robust mechanisms such as age verification to ensure that children do not have access to harmful content.

Australia has adopted the most rigorous and ambitious approach to consultation and action. Last June, the Australian Parliament passed the Online Safety Act 2021. At the same time, age verification guidelines have been developed by the eSafety Commissioner, and an action plan for porn sites and social media is expected within the year.

Moreover, for those who might worry about setting a dangerous precedent, know that age checks are increasingly adopted around the world. In Japan, those who want to use the Tinder app must prove that they are of legal age. Fans of the popular Roblox game must do so as well. Facebook is exploring age-verification options for adult-only videos.

Another reason to act: Canada has ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child and, as such, we must consider the United Nations alert regarding threats in the digital environment. As stated in a recent general comment, state parties should ensure that appropriate protections are in place to prevent children from accessing products that are harmful to them such as strong verification systems.

In closing, I want to express my gratitude for the strong support I have had over the past year for the principles underlying this bill. Despite the constraints related to COVID, we had real debate in the Senate. The predecessor Bill S-203 was praised, criticized in some respects and ultimately improved. The bill succeeded in passing the demanding test of committee study, where we heard from a dozen witnesses over about eight hours. I want to thank Senators Carignan, Cotter, Batters, Jaffer and Dalphond for their suggestions.

Outside the Senate, the initiative generated significant interest and we succeeded in bringing public attention to this threat to public health. Until we took action, the issue worried many parents but was not often discussed in Parliament. But that is the past; let’s look to the future.

Dear colleagues, I respectfully invite you to participate in the debate on the strengths and weaknesses of this new bill intended to protect children and young persons from the harms of pornography. We can discuss the modalities, but it is high time to act.

[Translation]