Hon. Julie Miville-Dechêne: I rise to speak at the third reading of Bill S-209, An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to pornographic material. This is the third time I have tried to get this bill passed in order to protect children. I will work tirelessly on their behalf and on behalf of Canadian parents who have been telling me for five years that this law is necessary.
The committee conducted an exhaustive review of the bill. We heard from 33 witnesses from here and abroad — from Europe and Australia — who came to discuss their child protection laws and to confirm, with supporting studies, the dangers of allowing minors to be exposed to pornography.
[English]Noni Classen, from the renowned Canadian Centre for Child Protection, provided the committee with stark and explicit examples of the content children are exposed to online. She testified as follows:
There is evidence that exposure to pornography can cause harm to children, particularly when that material is violent, degrading or illegal.
In our experience, adult online pornography is often extreme, with more frequent depictions of violence, sadism, bondage and torture, and it often depicts individuals who are made to appear younger. For example and for clarity, in one video that is readily available, the following occurs: A naked female young adult is shown on her hands and knees while a male is penetrating her from behind. In the background, there are at least six other naked men visible, all of whom appear to be engaged in masturbation. The men take turns engaging in anal intercourse with the female, one after the other. The video includes close-ups of the female’s face, where she is shown smiling at the camera. Toward the end of the video, the female is shown on her knees, performing fellatio on each of the men, in succession, who are lined up around the room.
I have a question for you, colleagues: Do you really want your children or grandchildren to be exposed to those scenes?
[Translation]Maria Hernandez-Mora Ruiz del Castillo, the renowned French clinical psychologist who treats young adults who are addicted to pornography, told the committee that early exposure to porn is literally a form of sexual assault. She said, and I quote:
Children who are exposed to pornography suffer a traumatic intrusion into their innocent psychological world. They cannot understand the images, but they can integrate them into their psyche. The images act as a traumatic shock that causes confusion, shame, anxiety and even dissociation. This is not passing curiosity with no effect. It is a serious attack on children’s psychic integrity and future mental health.
The clinician concludes that among children:
Pornography therefore shapes the circuits of desire, excitement and sex before strong emotional and educational frameworks are established.
The psychologist also emphasizes that violence is learned through pornography, since approximately 50% of mainstream pornography includes physical or verbal violence against women, who respond in a neutral or positive way.
Children therefore learn that violence can be associated with pleasure, that fear can coexist with arousal and that disgust can be desirable.
This leads to confusion and the normalization of violent practices, which can have tragic consequences. In France, one in two sexual assaults of a minor is committed by another minor.
Even more troubling, a recent study conducted in Finland showed that children exposed to pornography very early in life are more likely to seek out illegal child pornography content later on. The study by Protect the Children found that, by age 18, 57% of respondents had actively searched for child sexual abuse material online.
This compounding harm is compelling proof of why a law is needed. The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs also examined the mechanisms proposed by the bill. We adopted nine amendments that further strengthen and clarify Bill S-209. This successful team effort clearly shows the importance of sober second thought by Senate committees; in this case, it was a sober third review of this bill.
The first amendment, which is the simplest to explain, better clarifies the definition of what constitutes pornographic material, a concept of key importance in Bill S-209. The Criminal Code definition, which was frankly a little outdated and by some accounts too broad in scope, was set aside in favour of a more realistic, practical definition.
It now refers to material that shows the genital organs or anal region of a person engaged or depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity and that is intended to cause sexual excitement. We’re not talking about nude breasts being considered pornographic material or worrying that simple images of nudity will be targeted. I would remind you that, from the beginning, my bill has included an exception for pornographic material with a legitimate purpose related to science, medicine, education or the arts.
Another amendment adds a system of administrative monetary penalties and fines for pornography platforms that fail to comply with the law, that is, that fail to verify or estimate the age of their customers before giving them access to their site.
The government will define this system and the amount of the fines during the regulatory phase. This is in addition to a penalty that is already included in the bill, namely that the Federal Court would block access to offending sites in Canada. These penalties are similar to what is being done in other countries.
I took into account criticism about the potentially overly broad scope of Bill S-209 by proposing three amendments, which were adopted. A question arose: Does the bill target only pornography platforms, or does it also cover social media platforms, such as X, which distribute a lot of pornography consumed by minors?
Once again, we’re giving the government some leeway at the regulatory stage to decide what’s covered and what isn’t. Under clause 12, the Governor in Council may exclude certain porn distributors, such as social media platforms, from the application of the act.
This amendment struck me as all the more relevant given that the government is due to present a new version of the online harms bill, which will have an impact on content unsuitable for children on social media. It therefore needs some leeway.
Lastly, we’re now leaving it up to the government to decide when this bill comes into force, rather than prescribing a time frame of several years, because nothing is straightforward in internet legislation. Lord James Bethell, of the British House of Lords, told the committee that the U.K. spent two and a half years engaging with porn platforms and the web giants in order to refine the regulations.
[English]Let us return to the wording of the bill and concerns that users’ anonymity might not be respected during age verification or estimation. Privacy Commissioner Philippe Dufresne, who has been critical in the past, has, this time, expressed satisfaction with the amendments, which ensure stronger privacy protections in the latest version of the bill.
In particular, clause 12 has been strengthened to require the government to take into account a set of stricter criteria, including limiting the collection of personal information to what is strictly necessary and selecting a highly effective method for conducting age verification or age estimation. The methods will be chosen at the regulatory stage, as technology is evolving quickly.
The more time goes by, the more convinced I am that we need legislation to protect children from exposure to porn. What reinforces my conviction is that several countries and several U.S. states have taken decisive action, and there have been no reports of data breaches or privacy violations of porn users, contrary to the predictions of those opposed to any form of regulation.
Australia is leading the way: Three months after banning those under 16 from accessing social media, the Australian authorities have, since March 8, required internet users to prove they are 18 years old to access pornographic content, adult video games, sexually explicit chatbots or anything that encourages suicide or eating disorders. Offenders face fines of AUS$50 million.
The eSafety Commissioner of Australia appeared before our committee to describe what I would consider a real turning point. She stated that Australia:
. . . will require the search engines . . . to blur explicit violence, like the videos . . . but also pornography so that kids cannot come across this incidentally, accidentally and “in your face.”
Our research has shown that almost 30% of Australian kids under the age of 13 — usually around the ages of 9 and 10 — are not deliberately seeking out pornography but come across this by using a simple search engine or playing games. And they describe this as being “accidental, unsolicited and in your face.”
France, Germany and the United Kingdom have introduced legislation. Lord Bethell of the House of Lords reassured our committee:
We’ve heard libertarian arguments that age verification threatens privacy; in practice, it hasn’t. The U.K. has adopted privacy-preserving age estimation technologies such as facial analysis and document checks, but it is shown that they do not store personal data. These systems are already being used in banking, gambling and alcohol sales. . . .
He continued, “The goal is not perfection, it’s harm reduction.”
He also said, “The U.K. example shows this is achievable.”
Lastly, Lord Bethell said, “That’s why I urge Canada to act now. Delay only prolongs the harms to children.”
Things are also happening on the European Union side. Adult content platforms, such as Pornhub, Stripchat, XNXX and XVideos, have been charged with breaching European Union rules by letting children access pornographic content on their sites. It could lead to hefty fines, as much as 6% of their global annual turnover.
The tide is turning, and states are demanding accountability. Child protection is now at the forefront, and that is reassuring. But what is Canada doing? We are falling seriously behind, as there are still no concrete measures in place to protect Canadian children online.
Canadian Identity and Culture Minister Marc Miller is expected to introduce a new version of his online harms bill, as the previous version — Bill C-63 — died on the Order Paper. But Bill C-63 did not include any explicit requirement for porn sites to verify the age of their users. I hope the new version will be more comprehensive and precise because the psychological well-being of our children is at stake.
[Translation]I saw a glimmer of hope earlier while listening to Minister Solomon. Believe it or not, he mentioned age verification. That is a major step forward, because in all the time I’ve spent advocating for the need to protect children, no Liberal minister has ever uttered the words “age verification” before. So who knows? Maybe we are going to make progress.
In conclusion, in the absence of assurances from the government, I will continue to support this bill and speak out loud and clear on this issue.
Colleagues, I urge you to support Bill S-209 at third reading so that it may be sent to the House of Commons.
Thank you.