THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 4, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met with videoconference this day at 4:15 p.m. [ET] to discuss the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 30 and 31 of Part 5 of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025; and Bill S-209, An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to pornographic material.
Senator David M. Arnot (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good evening, honourable senators. I hope you had a good winter break. I declare open this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. My name is David Arnot. I’m a senator from Saskatchewan and chair of this committee. I invite my colleagues to introduce themselves.
Senator Batters: Senator Denise Batters, from Saskatchewan.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas, from Alberta.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Manuelle Oudar from Quebec. Welcome.
Senator Clement: Good afternoon. Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Prosper: Paul Prosper, Nova Scotia.
Senator K. Wells: Christopher Wells, Alberta Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Alberta. Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Pate: I am Kim Pate. I live here in the unceded, unsurrendered territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe. Welcome to all of you. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Good afternoon. Thank you for your patience. Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Dhillon: Welcome. Baltej Dhillon, British Columbia.
The Chair: Thank you, senators. Before we begin, I would like to ask all the senators and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.
Please make sure to always keep your earpiece away from all microphones, do not touch the microphone. It will be turned on and off by the console operator. Please avoid handling your earpiece while the microphone is on. You may keep it on your ear or in the place designated by a sticker on the table.
Thank you for all you to cooperation in advance.
Honourable senators, we’re meeting to conclude our study on the subject matter of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025 — specifically, elements contained in Divisions 30 and 31 of Part 5. For our first panel, we’re pleased to welcome the Honourable Sean Fraser, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. He is joined by his officials Sarah Geh, Assistant Deputy Minister, Public Law and Legislative Services Sector, Department of Justice Canada; Anna Dekker, Acting Senior Counsel and Deputy Director, Judicial Affairs Section, Department of Justice Canada; Marie-Josée Poirier, Counsel, Judicial Affairs Section, Department of Justice Canada; and Sacha Baharmand, Deputy Director General and General Counsel, Constitutional, Administrative and International Law Section, Department of Justice Canada.
Welcome, all of you, to our committee. Thank you for joining us here today. We’ll begin with opening remarks before we move to questions from the members of the committee. Minister, you have seven minutes or so. Thank you.
Hon. Sean Fraser, P.C., M.P, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency: Thank you, chair, and thank you, senators, for the opportunity to engage today on the budget implementation act. I was given seven minutes. I will endeavour to keep it shorter than that to save time for questions.
I expect we may get into issues beyond the four corners of the budget implementation act, and for me, that’s okay. But I should address the two key measures that fall within this piece of legislation that concern the Department of Justice before I transition into a short summary of the strategy that we’re adopting around public safety.
There are really two fairly simple measures, though the details can be nuanced to some degree, that are included in the budget implementation act. The first involves changes to how we’re going to apportion funding under the Judges Act for new positions created within the Province of Ontario. For clarity, this is part of an exercise that takes place annually, where we solicit feedback from different jurisdictions on whether they have the judicial complement necessary to meet the demands on their justice system.
As a result of decisions that were made a number of years ago, the judicial complement across a range of provinces has increased in response to the feedback that we heard from those various jurisdictions.
Ontario had 10 positions that have been allocated to the Superior Court general pool. In order to meet the priorities of the chief justices of the Court of Appeal and Superior Court, we have accommodated that feedback by repurposing the same funds that were destined for the general trial court or Superior Court division, to establish a new unified family court in Brampton that would have 8 of those 10 positions. The remaining two positions would go to the Court of Appeal to help meet the demands that have been flagged to me and to the department through the channels that we keep open with the courts routinely.
We expect that this is going to have a positive impact. I have seen in my own province the difference that having a unified family court in particular has. It can offer one-stop shopping for people often going through some of the most challenging periods in their lives by having a citizen-focused approach to justice. We can enhance the administration of justice and the user experience of the justice system.
The second piece included in this legislation involves an administrative change to the Administrative Tribunals Support Service of Canada. In some ways, it formalizes a practice that has been going on for many years by having this federal body — which supports a range of different tribunals at the federal level — also offer services to tribunals in one of the territories.
This bill will formalize that arrangement to some degree, but it will also create the opportunity, upon request from territories who determine it to be in their interest, to use this federal body to provide similar services to territorial tribunals. It would clear a pathway for similar partnerships in the other territories to the ones that exist in the Yukon.
This change, though administrative in nature, could have a profound impact on the efficiency of the services provided to tribunals at different levels.
When I started, I said I may transition into broader priorities.
[Translation]
It is no secret that public safety is a priority for our government. We’re starting the session with three bills, including a bill that will provide assistance across the country, protect victims and strengthen not only the bail system but also criminal court sentences.
Strengthening criminal law is not the only pillar. We have two other pillars in our public safety strategy. The second is to invest in policing, in protecting our borders and in assisting community organizations that support victims and deliver public safety programs. The third pillar of the strategy involves investments to ensure our long-term public safety.
[English]
This third pillar, in my view, is the most important in addressing crime prevention in the long term. We have to build healthier people and healthier communities if we want to build safer communities in the long term. This will include upstream investment scenarios, such as affordable and supportive housing. It will include investments to help provinces deliver mental health and addiction services to people who need them. It will involve investments in programs that target at-risk youth to help create a new path for them earlier in their lives. It necessitates investing in the kind of infrastructure that allows people to partake in life in their communities more fully, whether that’s through recreational or cultural infrastructures, beyond the direct programming that may target the needs I have identified.
Mr. Chair, I’m not sure how much time I have left, but if any time remains, I’m happy to yield it to committee members for questioning. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We have one and a half additional minutes.
Minister, I have a couple of questions. I will be very brief.
On Division 30, what were the real and pressing indicators that drove the choice to add positions to the Ontario Court of Appeal versus allocating capacity elsewhere, for instance, in regions with acute trial backlogs?
Mr. Fraser: Thank you. Maybe I can just take a step back to help everyone understand not which data we look at but how the decision is made. I don’t sit in my office at the Department of Justice or on Parliament Hill and try to pick winners among different districts across the country or within a given province.
We ask those who are charged with the responsibility to administer those systems to point us in the right direction and make the decisions they ought to be empowered to make. Respecting the independence of the courts on how to apportion the resources we allocate to them is an essential part of protecting judicial independence to ensure they can make decisions. I believe the people in those roles are better positioned than whoever the minister may be, whether that’s me or a successor or predecessor.
We engage with the people who know the needs of those different courts and understand which priorities they are trying to accomplish. By engaging directly with the chief justices, of the Court of Appeal and the Superior Court in this instance, and continuing the engagement between departments federally, provincially and with the bench, we have identified an opportunity to support the priority that has been established within the court system to create a unified family court in Brampton and to increase the judicial complement on the Court of Appeal. It’s really that process of engagement rather than analysis that I conduct based on the acute needs of different communities.
The Chair: What performance targets does the federal government expect from the unified family court reallocation, for example, the median time-to-hearing backlog reduction, and over what time frame? How will these be tracked by the federal government, and when will they be made public?
Mr. Fraser: Thank you. That’s an odd question about this specific investment, since we can’t track it based on historical trends because it’s new. The establishment of a new facility won’t have a history of data to which we can compare the future orientation.
The data question that you have asked is something that the courts hold, which is the responsibility of the court itself. We engage with them on data sharing, but the extent to which that data is made public is a decision that would require the consent of the courts. Depending on any given issue, whether the court has a desire to publish that data or not, the results could vary, so we don’t necessarily have the historical comparator. On the data piece, I don’t have a date for you. That would depend on collaboration with the courts.
If you’ll indulge me, data collection and sharing in the justice system is something that I think we can improve upon in Canada. Despite the fact that it’s not traditionally a responsibility of the federal government, should this committee or our colleagues within the House of Commons on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights wish to undertake a study on how we can better collect, in a uniform way, data between provinces and between courts and share that information with the public, I would be grateful for your guidance in that regard.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Batters: Thanks for being here, minister. This will assist our committee in knowing a bit more about the ins and outs of why your government decided to remove some of these judges from different parts of the country and then reassign them to these Ontario Court of Appeal and unified family court spots.
In making that decision, did your government produce or commission an analysis of the impact of that decision on the Supreme Court of Canada’s Jordan timeline? Please answer yes or no. If yes, can you provide it to our Senate Legal Committee to assist in our study of this bill?
Mr. Fraser: There is a pretense upon which your question rests that I respectfully disagree with. There wasn’t a decision to pull from other jurisdictions. There were a number of different jurisdictions that benefited from a decision to increase the judicial complement a number of years ago. Through our engagement with those jurisdictions, some have fully utilized the number of positions that we made available. Some didn’t take advantage of those. With respect to the 10 we’re dealing with for Ontario, this is repurposing funds that were intended to be for Ontario previously, so the idea that we pulled from one province in order to do a favour for Ontario doesn’t accurately reflect how this decision would have played out. All this was before my time in the position, but the legislation is here now, and that’s why I’m here.
On the question on the Jordan timeline, it’s difficult to assess with certainty only because we’re dealing with different courts, and how the number of judges at the Superior Court would impact proceedings in a provincial court, for example, where a lot of challenges we have with delays are coming up, would be a very difficult thing to manage, including because courts don’t necessarily uniformly collect data. To understand precisely how a new unified family court in Brampton will alleviate pressures on a provincial court in Toronto is something that I don’t have the information for today, but I expect that would be difficult to glean based on the data-collection practices that exist and the inconsistency across Canada.
Senator Batters: It absolutely sounds as if you’re saying that there aren’t those abilities to collect that data. But then, soon before our committee started the study of this part of the budget implementation act, there was a shocking media report that came out that let Canadians know that 9,560 criminal charges were stayed in the 2023-24 year due to exceeding the Supreme Court of Canada’s Jordan timeline. Did your decision take that into account? I understand you’re saying that these were positions that were allocated and, frankly, announced by your government — usually budget implementation acts in previous years — so you’re saying that the province didn’t use those judges, perhaps. So is that why they were doing that?
Did your decision take into account, though, that shocking media report that Canadians heard about?
Mr. Fraser: You have used the right word: It was shocking when I saw the number of cases that were dismissed for delay.
I’ll answer your question first and then add an additional piece that I think is pertinent.
This decision to increase the complement of judges was taken before the news reports that I would have seen with respect to how many cases were being rejected for delay. However, the general pressures on the legal system, which would have contributed to some delays, certainly, were well known at the time these decisions were taken. In fact, the conversations between the courts and government helped inform the decision to increase the judicial complement, as I described earlier.
But we shouldn’t assume that simply increasing the complement of judges is going to solve the delay problems entirely or that it will be the primary strategy. Keep in mind that this is not just criminal cases at superior courts here; 8 of these 10 positions will go to unified family court. That will have a positive impact in the provincial court system, as the resources that were previously serving family needs in provincial courts would presumably be freed up.
However, we have to do so much more to deal with the delays. Specifically, there is a bill that I expect will arrive before the Senate in the coming weeks that will address delays in a few different ways. One is to improve the process through which evidence is adduced, including in sexual assault trials, which take up an enormous amount of time in court proceedings. We’re also going to directly address some of the consequences that I can’t accept that came from the Jordan decision, even though I agree with the principle the Supreme Court was trying to uphold.
Senator Batters: I need to move on to one final thing I want to ask about. Certainly, we’ll have a chance to review those things when they come before committee.
But this has been a problem. Our Legal Committee actually did a study in 2017 — a lengthy study — about court delays, so we have been acutely aware of this for a long time. Your government, in the past 10 years, has been seized with this. The issue of judge vacancies is actually one thing that your government — in superior courts, yes, but that is a definite part of the problem here — can actually have a very direct impact on by filling those vacancies. There was a large problem for many years. It did briefly get better in recent years, but now your vacancy rate is already up into the dozens again; you’re consistently at 37 to 40.
Why do you have these stubbornly high judicial vacancy numbers?
Mr. Fraser: The number we’re dealing with today, which I think was 37 the last I saw, is not a historical high.
However, we are filling them as quickly as we can. Of course, when a judge retires in a community or chooses to leave the profession for other professional opportunities, those numbers can fluctuate day to day, but as soon as they come up, we seek to fill them as quickly as possible.
I would agree with you that, a number of years ago, the Government of Canada was taking too long to fill some of these vacancies. That has changed dramatically. I should give credit to my predecessor Arif Virani, who really did step up the speed of these appointments for existing vacancies. We have kept pace with the change practice that we have seen implemented by my predecessor.
Just to differentiate the issue of vacancies from the issue of judicial complement, filling vacancies is filling posts that already exist. The conversation we’re having today regards creating new positions altogether that would then need to be filled. We need to do both, certainly, but for the benefit of this committee, we should understand that vacancies are a separate issue distinct from the measures contemplated by the budget implementation act.
Senator Batters: Right, but they go hand in hand, because you absolutely need to not just make the announcement but actually fill the vacancies. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: When the officials came to speak to us, we tried to find out what the situation was in the other provinces. However, perhaps for reasons of privacy or confidential information, we never found out. We know that Ontario has switched around its judges to try to improve the situation. What were the other provinces asking for? I’m particularly interested in Quebec, because there are significant court delays there as well. Has that been asked about? Has the province asked for judicial positions to be filled or changes made to improve the situation?
[English]
Mr. Fraser: Off the top of my head, I don’t know the precise number, but the other piece that is sensitive to this is that the information that is shared with us belongs to the courts.
[Translation]
We need permission from the court to share information. I am not in a position to provide information when there are confidentiality issues.
[English]
Without having the courts say that they’re comfortable having this conversation in public, I would be remiss to pierce that veil of privacy that does exist. To the extent that the Senate wishes to pose a question of courts in different jurisdictions, I would invite the committee to do so. Perhaps, if the court is willing to share the information that way, that would be a better approach.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Even without using a single province as an example, can you tell us, in the last round of questions, why there were changes only in Ontario, and not in the other provinces?
[English]
Mr. Fraser: With respect to Ontario, in this budget implementation act, we are dealing with money that is being repurposed but was destined for Ontario. Annually, there is a process where we put out a call to ask if other jurisdictions also require an increase to their overall judicial complement. If they say yes, we ask them to put together a business case, explaining what has changed and why they have greater needs — “Are you dealing with more complex cases? Have your cities grown?” — whatever the reasons might be. Then we conduct an independent assessment and have that conversation on a bilateral basis.
So, annually, not every jurisdiction asks for more, and not every jurisdiction responds.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: — in the last round?
Mr. Fraser: I would need the consent of the courts in the various jurisdictions. To the extent you wish me to ask, I would be happy if jurisdictions would be willing to share. However, I don’t want to violate the privacy of information that was shared with me. Perhaps we can ask, or the committee on its own behalf could pose that question.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you, minister.
[English]
Senator Prosper: Thank you, minister, for being here with us.
You outlined earlier the process with respect to engagement, and you highlighted judicial independence. You mentioned it involves certain chief justices, but does that engagement involve anyone else?
Second, with respect to your assessment as a precursor, let’s say, before that engagement or even post-engagement, do you have any internal directives, documents or guidelines that help you in the assessment of specific needs that you are getting? For example, you mentioned an independent assessment while answering a question earlier. What elements of that assessment can you share with us?
Mr. Fraser: Thank you for the question.
It’s highly dependent on the individual requests that we may receive because the reasons can vary significantly as between jurisdictions, or even within a jurisdiction, or as between different years. The different reasons given for a request could include that the population of a particular region or province has grown. They could deal with the increased needs of the courts that may result from that growth through family law cases that have increased, for example. They could also include the fact that there are significant and more complex trials that are going to be appearing before the court.
We don’t necessarily settle set a limit on what reasons may be provided; rather, we allow a lot of leeway during the process where we solicit those calls and ask for a business case to allow the different jurisdictions to explain why it may be necessary.
I don’t know if any officials here would like to point to any guidelines or practices we might offer that can better inform the response.
Anna Dekker, Acting Senior Counsel and Deputy Director, Judicial Affairs Section, Department of Justice Canada: I am happy to try to provide a little more clarification. The information that we ask for, as the minister has mentioned, it is not uniform across Canada. Some of the information we try to ask for regards any trends we might be able to glean from any objective data that they have available. So, for example, we will ask for — if they have it — the number of cases that are filed annually, broken down by civil, criminal, family, and then the number of cases disposed of. One great indicator is if there is an increase in the number of cases pending trial and it’s taking longer to schedule trials; that is a very clear indicator that the court is not able to keep up with its workload.
Other things that we take into account — and each court has its own needs, of course, and they have somewhat different processes — include looking at trial length. Some courts point to the number of self-represented litigants, which can sometimes increase the length of trials and the complexity of things. I hope that helps. Those are the types of things.
Senator Prosper: Thank you.
Senator Simons: I want to follow on from Senator Prosper’s question. In our complicated federation, different provinces have different needs and establish different priorities. My own home province of Alberta, for example, has rejected the idea of a unified family court. I believe in the last budget cycle, the money that had been set aside has been pulled back.
Recently, a letter was released by the premier of my province saying that she will refuse to fund any further judicial positions in Alberta unless Alberta is given the right to be consulted about appointments to the Court of King’s Bench, the Court of Appeal and, indeed, to the Supreme Court of Canada, and that she would like those judge appointments to “. . . appropriately reflect Alberta’s distinct legal traditions,” with which I am myself unfamiliar. Minister, could you speak a little bit about, if not from a provincial government, how much input you receive from Albertans who are experts in the field before making judicial appointments in Alberta? How about for other provinces? What would it mean for the courts in Alberta if the province refused to fund positions going forward? Would the federal government be prepared to step in and make up the balance?
Mr. Fraser: Thank you, Senator Simons, for the question. There are a few different elements that I’ll try to unpack. Maybe first, I’ll deal with the process of appointments, which was the focus of your question, and then talk about the decision to provide or not provide resources for the courts. Let me start by saying I’m a member of the Law Society of Alberta. It is the only province in which I’ve ever practised. It is a jurisdiction that has some of the most talented lawyers and judges that I have ever encountered despite the fact that I practise there. Of course, I deal with members of the profession across Canada and around the world.
The key piece to this for me, to start, is we have to be very careful about stepping on the independence of the judiciary. It is an essential pillar of a democracy to have an independent judiciary and an independent court. Governments can make laws, but everyone — not just lawyers and politicians — must know with absolute certainty that everyone, including the government that appoints judges, is subject to the laws that they are empowered to enforce. Offering public commentary about the job a judge is doing or potentially withdrawing resources that would allow them to do their job can be a risky thing to do when you’re dealing with a profession made up of people who, in my experience, have extraordinary integrity and are not free to defend themselves in public because of the role that they fulfill within our society.
Because we want to maintain that level of integrity on the bench, when we make appointments, we do a lot of engagement. We’ve established an independent body in each province, judicial advisory committees. They’re made up of representatives chosen by the federal government, the provincial government and by the bench, the bar — people who know what they’re talking about in a given jurisdiction. Those committees produce recommendations for names that they believe should or could be appointed to the bench.
Beyond that process, which is formal and independent, my own office does consultations, including with political actors and various jurisdictions, to understand if there is further light they can shed on the reputation of people we’re thinking of appointing. This includes, by the way, during my time in this position, engagement directly with members of the Government of Alberta. In fact, with respect to very recent appointments, part of the process involved significant endorsements from political actors in Alberta that allowed me to have confidence that the judicial advisory committee’s recommendation was the correct one.
I found that process worked. The voice of Albertans has been heard through the provincial government, but also through the legal profession.
The second piece that you’ve drawn attention to is the potential to provide or withdraw resources. There are areas for which the federal government is responsible under the Constitution. Appointing judges is clearly one of them. The administration of the justice system falls squarely to the provinces. Every province is free to fund or not fund the justice system, but a decision to withdraw funding that the courts rely upon will be felt plainly by ordinary working people in the provinces who rely upon those court services. We are not expecting to respond to provincial decisions by simply backstopping budgets that should be fulfilled by provincial governments in areas of provincial responsibility. So to the extent any government wishes to withdraw funding to the courts or to judges, that’s a decision that they should take, but the pain that will be felt will be uniquely felt by their constituents.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much.
Senator Pate: I want to follow up on the role of self‑representation you mentioned in response to Senator Prosper’s question. Often, a lack of judges is seen as one of the primary reasons for the delay, but the interplay between legal aid, self‑representation and the increased use of law versus other community-based openings is sometimes not weighed as much. I’d like to hear more, if possible, about what’s being done in those other areas that contribute to the increased load on the courts.
Mr. Fraser: The answer will vary depending on where you are in Canada because so many of the policy authorities that exist when it comes to the administration of justice fall to provincial governments. I can’t purport to answer for the different subnational jurisdictions who have authority in their respective spaces. That said, there are areas where we can contribute. There have been decisions taken over the past number of years to uniquely support areas of legal aid where there is a particular federal responsibility. Immigration and refugee legal aid would be a good example where we know we can provide services to a system that currently has a significant number of self-represented litigants, which generally does not serve the interests of the litigants, nor the courts, nor the community more broadly. Having access to those services can speed up the process and, importantly, deliver more just outcomes more routinely as well.
There are other things that we can do. In fact, one of the features of Bill C-16, which I hope will be arriving before the Senate in the upcoming weeks, includes directions to embrace ideas around diversion and restorative justice where appropriate. This can help reduce the actual caseload that may land before a court where public safety is not at risk and, importantly, where the victim of a particular crime is interested in pursuing a process that would engage that unique kind of resolution to criminal justice proceedings.
Obviously, there are other things we need to do around keeping pace with appointments of judges in areas of federal jurisdiction within the superior courts. There is a range of other things that can be done, to your point, at a community level that have a longer time horizon to fully realize. However, when I talk about investments in mental health and addictions, you’re often pulling a person into the services they need rather than the place they end up if they don’t get them. A number of people end up before courts who would be more properly dealt with by having appropriate access to social workers, education programs, skills development, mental health and addiction services or a roof over their heads. If we fail to make those investments, we’re going to be moving problems around for a century. If we go upstream, we can build healthier people who are less likely to become violent or dangerous and less likely to interface with public safety officers, so we need to approach this from a whole-of-society perspective. On the unique other features that are more directly connected to delays, for example, that would engage significant decision-making powers within the provinces, and each of them is choosing different strategies in that regard.
Senator Pate: In unified family court — of course, family law is provincial jurisdiction — one of the questions around the family courts is self-representation and there being hardly any legal aid in a few jurisdictions. Is there any move to look at trying to push for some national standards or resourcing in those areas?
Mr. Fraser: I would be open to those conversations, but the problems are often not just unique to each province; they are unique to different communities. When I talk to people who have had horrific experiences in the family law system where there isn’t a unified family court, sometimes it’s because there is no bus to get to a superior court, but the provincial court they can access. Sometimes, the fact that they couldn’t appear for a reason like that has them receive a court date where they have to return to explain why they weren’t there that conflicts with the court date in the provincial court system. Having a one-stop shop where families who are dealing with custody battles, division of assets — all of the things that you deal with in family law — would be able to be dealt with in a more uniform way, where you’re dealing with a single court that a person becomes familiar with. These very real human experiences are as much of a challenge.
From my perspective, if provinces wanted to come together with the federal government to identify how we can improve, from a citizen-centred point of view, the experience of going through a court dispute, family or otherwise, that is an initiative worth pursuing. But we can’t assume that the national standard is necessarily the appropriate way to deal with it, given that there are so many different challenges that manifest in different jurisdictions.
If you or others have feedback or want to take part in a national initiative, it would be very welcome.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Minister, thank you to you and your team for being here today and sharing your priorities for justice and public safety. We appreciate it.
I would like to ask you a question about Bill C-15 and come back to the issue of interprovincial equity. In Bill C-15, we see that the ten judicial positions will go to Ontario, two to the Court of Appeal and two to the new unified family court in Brampton.
What do we say to those who see interprovincial inequity in the way they are allocated? Can you share with us the government’s objectives or the criteria it uses to determine which judicial positions should go to one province or another? What do we say to those who are asking for more positions? They are experiencing problems with a larger number of litigants, including Indigenous litigants and remote communities that face equally significant challenges. I would like to hear what you have to say about the government’s national criteria for allocation. Maybe we’ll find an answer for those who ask us questions about interprovincial equity.
Thank you.
Mr. Fraser: Thank you for the question.
We need equitable investment across the country. This is a priority for me. However, the issue requires understanding the nuances of the decision.
[English]
All of this stems from a decision eight years ago — it was in 2018, I believe — to increase the complement, including across these unified family courts. Several jurisdictions received support during that phase. Some took it up. Some have chosen not to embrace unified family courts, but for years now, these positions — or since Budget 2024. Sorry, there is some nuance here.
These are resources that were determined to be for Ontario dating back a number of years. This is not a new decision where we considered every jurisdiction and determined we would give it all to one province. That would be a manifestly unreasonable thing to do. Instead, these are resources profiled for Ontario as part of that exercise a number of years ago that were never fully implemented. Through engagement with the court, they’ve told us how to best prioritize the eight positions at the unified family court in Brampton and the two for the Court of Appeal.
Every year, we invite all the other jurisdictions to submit an explanation as to whether they need more judges in their jurisdiction and why. We assess each of those independently. It’s not as though we have a set number each year and decide to dole them out as we see fit. It’s a direct response to the explanations that we receive.
If we’re seeking to achieve regional fairness, I would invite the courts of the different jurisdictions, as we do each year, to submit a business case explaining why their courts are facing pressures that would be solved by increasing the complement of judges in those respective jurisdictions.
Senator K. Wells: Welcome, Mr. Fraser. Thank you for your time today. I would like to echo what Senator Simons said so cogently about some of the needs and concerns in Alberta, but I want to zoom out a little for the purposes of our conversation here.
Thinking broadly about access to justice, legal aid, the need for more judges and Crown counsel and, in particular, the topic of specialized hate crime prosecutors, are the federal programs that support this work going to be impacted by this comprehensive spending review?
Mr. Fraser: The bulk of the decisions regarding the people who work on the day-to-day management of the court system are taken by provincial governments and would be isolated from the expenditure review that the federal government is undertaking. There are some programs, like with every other government department, where we will be looking to reduce spending over the next number of years, but we try to assess each of those programs on the basis of the impact that they’re having. To the extent that we are seeing incredible results from investments in legal aid and areas that touch on federal jurisdiction, we would seek to prioritize those over programs that perhaps would have less of a positive impact.
There are other funds year to year that can vary based on budget decisions that the federal government will have at its disposal to support community safety initiatives and people who have gone through the criminal justice process, and we rigorously assess which of those programs are having their intended impact. I think we have a responsibility to Canadians to say if it’s not working, let’s not spend money on it; if it is working, let’s reprofile more of our resources there. But on the day-to-day needs of running the justice system and dealing with the challenges that result in delays, the bulk of those would be isolated from the expenditure review because they mostly fall into areas of provincial jurisdiction, including Crown counsel, for example, who will prosecute in a provincial court.
Senator K. Wells: Thank you for the clarifications.
Senator Clement: Thank you to the officials and to you, Mr. Minister, for being here.
You said in your opening remarks that you would be okay to go beyond the bill that is before us.
Mr. Fraser: I expect it routinely. It’s no problem.
Senator Clement: That’s what we’ll do.
First, I want to say — smugly, maybe — that, as an Ontario senator, unified family courts are fantastic. I hope that every corner of this country eventually benefits from that kind of expertise.
As we’re living through this existential economic crisis and as our government legitimately focuses on that, I worry about the voices that are not powerful, that are more vulnerable, those that would benefit from investments to the Indigenous Justice Strategy and the Black Justice Strategy. You spoke about building better humans. I worry about Bill C-14 coming up and the law-and-order agenda. It’s easy to speak law and order to Canadians. The messages are easy and clear and speak to safety and fear, but I think the more complicated part is speaking about supporting and building better humans.
How is our government planning to talk about that? I think a lot of voices are afraid of what’s coming, not just the big economic crisis but about what it means for them in their communities.
Mr. Fraser: Thank you, senator, for the question. It’s hard to know where to start because there are a lot of different aspects to your question, and I think each is very important.
On public safety more broadly, my approach is to figure out how we can, as a starting point, set rules that we think will deliver positive public safety outcomes and ensure that serious crimes are treated seriously by the courts. But then we have to recognize that changes that we make to federal laws — the Criminal Code is a very blunt instrument in some ways — can disproportionately impact different cohorts of Canadians. Then we need to adjust and accommodate the different needs to ensure that the justice system actually delivers justice.
I think to myself about the engagements that I have had personally. The African Nova Scotian Justice Institute is in town as part of Black History Month celebrations. They have done pioneering work on the role and impact of race and culture assessments to ensure we have a unique understanding of the life circumstances of Black offenders, who are more routinely confronted by police in their community, who are overrepresented not just as incarcerated persons but as victims and who will be able to work with the court to demonstrate what the appropriate outcome might be. It follows the long tradition of Gladue Reports, as they impact Indigenous offenders in this country.
The Indigenous Justice Strategy, similarly, tries to embrace solutions that have come from Indigenous Peoples in Canada, including better recognition of by-laws adopted by Indigenous governments, as well as Indigenous policing, whether that’s a police unit that may be run by an Indigenous community or whether that may be greater representation within policing more broadly.
These are helpful approaches that allow one to understand where the unique impacts are once you set the table with the rules that you think promote public safety. However, in the long term, we can’t ignore those upstream investments that I discussed during my opening remarks. All of the justice strategies in the world won’t serve a person who doesn’t have a roof over their head. They will not serve a person who has addictions that are not met with the treatment they demand, and they won’t necessarily help divert a young person who is engaging in behaviour that we know is predictive of criminal instances later in life.
If we make the investments before violence happens, rather than focus exclusively on penalizing people after the crime has taken place, my view is that, in the long term, Canada can become a much safer place. However, it has to become a much safer place for everyone, and that demands that everyone have an opportunity to take part in the policy development process.
Senator Clement: Thank you. I’m hoping that is part of the conversation when you continue with your legislative agenda — that we find ways to speak to Canadians so that it’s not just a law-and-order piece, but also all the other things that must be talked about at the same time.
Mr. Fraser: You will not hear me introduce a bill in the House of Commons or speak about one publicly that ignores the essential nature of the upstream investments or the front-line investments, frankly. That includes not just police and border officers but community organizations that support victims of crime. Without all three prongs, the strategy will fail.
If anyone tells you we need law and order and tougher rules without also acknowledging that we need police in our communities, officers at the border and investments in health and well-being, they may be pandering for political purposes, but they won’t advance public safety. I assure you, in the past and going forward, you won’t hear me give public addresses about public safety without recognizing the need to build healthier people.
Senator Clement: Thank you.
Senator Pate: Thank you, Senator Clement, for raising those issues. This is a budget implementation bill. The issues you have just spoken about are not represented in this budget implementation bill. I’m very pleased to hear you talk about that.
How do we assist the government in getting to the place of actually funding these initiatives? I ask because, as you well know, one of the bills that is coming up deals with mandatory minimum penalties that preclude the very things you talked about — Section 718.2(e) reports, often referred to as Gladue Reports, cultural impact reports. We know the numbers for Indigenous and Black folks are going higher within the prison system — criminalization and incarceration — and it is even worse when we look at youth. So those investments need to happen. I’m struck. We’re dealing with a budget implementation bill. It would have been a prime opportunity to see it in there. I guess it’s more a comment than a question.
Mr. Fraser: The question you are asking is how you can be part of ensuring those other pillars in the strategy are realized for government policy. You’re uniquely positioned among Canadians to have an impact, both in your legislative work but also in your role as an advocate who has a platform.
Believe it or not, there are many members of Parliament, including those who sit around the cabinet table, who care deeply about what public statements are issued from members of the Senate.
One piece I would like to assure that there is a full understanding of is that those elements are being pursued actively. It’s not a coincidence that the introduction of Build Canada Homes, which is being stood up as we speak, coincides with the broader public safety agenda. It’s not a coincidence that Minister Valdez announced hundreds of millions of dollars of support for women’s organizations that support victims of sexual crime and help deliver programming to youth around a variety of issues that can have long-term positive impacts on public safety — better educating not just victims of sexual assault but young men about the need to understand the role of consent in sexual relationships.
Though these investments may not be tied to the specific Department of Justice line items in this budget implementation act, they are being pursued simultaneously. Though we might be here to discuss the administrative tribunal support services of Canada and changes under the Judges Act, there is an opportunity for senators to scrutinize more broadly the work of the government when it comes to advancing these other upstream investments, as I have described. Thank you.
Senator Batters: I will just follow up on an earlier question that Senator Pate asked you about family law, which I practised for many years in Saskatchewan. Then I was the justice minister from Saskatchewan’s chief of staff for approximately five years, so I know that a long-standing situation at the federal-provincial-territorial justice minister’s table is constant provincial requests to the federal government that significant additional funds be made available for legal aid for family law matters. You gave a few examples of some of these things that can be solved, like a bus stop or something like that, for family law proceedings. However, for several years, a clear way that provincial governments have been asking the federal government to help out regarding the significant self-represented litigants and so on is for the federal government to give more money for legal aid, so that these people can be helped with the court process in often very complicated family law matters.
Would you agree that’s what the provincial governments have been asking for over many years?
Mr. Fraser: It depends on which province. It’s not an issue that comes up with unanimity or even uniformity in the conversations I have had with my counterparts. That’s not to say that it has not come up. To be clear, there are requests for legal aid. They typically touch on areas of pure or majority federal responsibility. The variance between provinces is enormous. I know my province, though governed by a different political party, is nevertheless a significant investor in legal aid as compared to all other provinces in the federation.
They are making the argument that, instead of doing it on a proportionate basis, we should reflect the level of investment that provincial governments are making. We don’t want to suggest that we’re going to start uploading, so to speak, costs that occur within areas that are primarily the jurisdiction of the provinces. However, to the extent that there is a unified view among provinces on areas of federal responsibility we can better fund to improve outcomes, that’s a conversation that I routinely have with my counterparts.
The focus in my engagement during my term in this position, which is largely reflective of the priorities of Canadians, has been more on criminal justice reform. I note the premiers issued a unanimous call to swiftly adopt the bail and sentencing reform act, for example. I wouldn’t assume that there is unanimity in what is being requested, despite the fact that legal aid generally comes up with some frequency.
The Chair: All right, senators. Thank you, Minister Fraser, for coming here today and assisting in our work. Thank you for bringing your professional colleagues here to assist us in our work.
Honourable senators, we’ll excuse the minister and his officials and turn our attention to the draft report on Bill C-15 that was shared with the full committee in December 2025. I remind the members that we have to report to the chamber before Friday, February 13, 2026.
Following the minister’s testimony, colleagues, do members of the committee have any additional observations they would like to put forward in the report?
Senator Batters: There is just a small wording change I would like to make that I saw when I was reading through this. It’s on the second page of the report in the first full paragraph, right under the subheading “Court Delays.” Usually, we have these numbered, so it’s on the fourth last line of the paragraph, where it says “. . . analysis concerning the government’s responsibility to structure the justice system to respect the principles.”
I would suggest adding the phrase “. . . and the consequences of the Jordan decision.” It would say:
Following questions posed by the committee regarding the existence of an analysis concerning the government’s responsibility to structure the justice system to respect the principles and the consequences of the Jordan decision, Department of Justice officials indicated they had no such analysis to share with the committee.
I think that could be an appropriate addition.
The Chair: Senators, do you agree with the addition? Are there any comments?
Senator Saint-Germain: I’m not understanding how we can respect consequences. I understand respecting principles, but I don’t understand respecting consequences.
Senator Batters: I think that it can work like that because there are significant consequences. I mean, the Jordan decision — you’re just thinking the wording?
Senator Saint-Germain: How do we respect the consequences?
Senator Batters: I think it’s acceptable.
Senator Saint-Germain: It cannot work. “Take into account” would be better.
Senator Batters: “Respect the principles.”
Senator Martin: “Consider the consequences.”
Senator Saint-Germain: “In order to minimize the negative consequences.”
Senator Batters: We’re talking about an analysis. “Take into account” could be fine too. “Take into account the consequences of . . .”
The Chair: “Consider consequences” or “take into account the consequences.” Does anybody have a preference? “Consider”?
Senator Batters: That’s fine. Sure.
The Chair: Is there consensus on that? Thank you.
Are there any other observations or comments before we move to seek agreement on the report? I see no other comments from any other senators.
Senators, there is consensus on that. Therefore, there are no further formal changes.
Honourable senators, is it your pleasure to adopt the report on the subject matter of those elements contained in Divisions 30 and 31 of Part 5 of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on November 4, 2025? Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed that I table on behalf of this committee the report to the Senate in both official languages before February 13, 2026? Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, senators.
Honourable colleagues, we’re resuming our study of Bill S-209, An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to pornographic material.
On our second panel this evening, we have Maria Hernandez‑‑Mora Ruiz del Castillo, Clinical Psychologist, Hospital Marmottan, Centre francophone de ressources et accompagnement de l’addiction à la pornographie. She is joining us from France by video conference. We have Noni Classen, Director of Education and Support Services, Canadian Centre for Child Protection, by video conference. We have with us in person Tracy Vaillancourt, Full Professor and Tier 1 Canada Research Chair, University of Ottawa.
Thank you to all the witnesses for joining us today. We’ll begin with opening remarks before we move to questions. I’m going to ask each of the witnesses to give their opening remarks. I will have to hold you to five minutes.
We’ll start with Maria Hernandez-Mora Ruiz del Castillo. Please proceed.
[Translation]
Maria Hernandez-Mora Ruiz del Castillo, Clinical Psychologist, Hospital Marmottan, Centre francophone de ressources et accompagnement de l’addiction à la pornographie, as an individual: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Honourable senators, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today on a topic that transcends political, cultural and ideological divides.
Protecting children from exposure to pornography is a real issue of public health and collective responsibility. In Canada and France, the average age of first exposure to pornography is around 11 and sometimes earlier, meaning often in prepubescence. The science is now clear: Early and repeated exposure to pornography is associated with lasting effects on children’s psychosexual and mental development, the shaping of their identity and the relational behaviours of the adults they will be in the future.
I’m a clinical psychologist. I wrote the first thesis on pornography addiction in France. I work intensively on this. I created pioneering specialist consultations in hospitals and founded the Centre francophone de ressources et d’accompagnement de l’addiction à la pornographie, where we are pleased to count on Canadian colleagues.
In my consultations, I have for many years met with children, adolescents and adults who suffer the consequences of compulsive pornography usage. One clinical finding comes up with striking regularity: The vast majority of adult patients I support today for a serious addiction to pornography, with deterioration in their mental and sexual health, began using pornography as children or young teenagers. This means that exposure to pornography is not trivial. It is a developmental ticking time bomb that promotes compulsive behaviour very early in a person’s life, at a time when they have neither the framework nor the necessary protective capacity.
Today I wish to highlight three major mechanisms that are at work in children’s early exposure to pornography.
The first thing is this: Exposure to pornography is a psychological invasion. 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.
My team and I wrote a report for the 61st session of the United Nations Human Rights Council, where we proposed that distributing pornography accessible to children be legally considered a type of sexual assault, because we see similar effects on their mental health as we do with other types of sexual assault.
A second point is that learning violence becomes problematic. As you know, childhood and adolescence are periods when the brain is immature, but highly plastic and highly mouldable. Contact with pornography places children in a particularly powerful learning situation. There are three ingredients required for what is called optimal learning: focused attention, body activation or bodily engagement of the child or teen and enjoyment in the form of the gratification of masturbation. These three elements promote long-term imprinting, very powerful learning where images and scenarios are stored in children’s memory, which changes their internal representations of sexuality. Pornography therefore shapes the circuits of desire, excitement and sex before strong emotional and educational frameworks are established.
Also, we know today that mainstream pornography is overwhelmingly violent. Content studies have shown that about 50% of mainstream pornography is physical or verbal violence toward women, who respond in a neutral or positive manner. This profoundly blurs the fundamental frameworks of protecting oneself and one another. Children learn that violence can be associated with pleasure, that fear can coexist with arousal, that disgust can be desirable. This leads to terrible confusion. Unfortunately, it contributes to the normalization of the violent practices observed today among minors. For example, in France, we know that one in two rapes of minors are committed by another minor. We also know that pornography plays a significant role in these actions.
Finally, the progress of addiction hinders the development of emotional regulation and healthy impulse control. Children exposed to pornography too early and repeatedly can become more impulsive adolescents and then adults, less tolerant of frustration, deeply disconnected from themselves and others, and with severe short-term and long-term psychological imbalances. This is a major public health and child protection issue. Once we know that, not taking action becomes a choice. Children are paying the price for adult freedom of usage.
Thank you for your attention.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. I’ll ask now Ms. Noni Classen to address us. You have five minutes.
Noni Classen, Director of Education and Support Services, as an individual: Mr. Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear and present before you today.
Children are growing up in a digital environment where pornography is widely accessible, often encountered unintentionally and increasingly viewed at very young ages. Children can access adult content not only on dedicated pornography sites but also on mainstream social media, messaging apps and gaming platforms. 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.
On the child-abuse material side, our data reveals that the victims depicted are getting younger and the assaults more graphic, paralleling adult pornography themes. These trends are interconnected, and they matter.
Children, particularly those going through puberty, are in critical stages of social, sexual and neurological development. Research consistently links pornography exposure to shame, anxiety, intrusive thoughts, difficulty forming healthy relationships, harmful sexual beliefs and behaviours and distorted understandings of consent. For example, a multi‑country European study found that boys’ perpetration of sexual coercion and abuse was significantly associated with regular viewing of online pornography.
Pornography exposure can also contribute to the normalization of sexual harm. Youth who are overexposed, especially to violent pornography, are less likely to intervene when they witness sexual assault and less likely to disclose when they themselves are harmed. Additional documented impacts include increased aggression, reinforcement of harmful gender stereotypes, sexual dysfunction, depression, substance use and risky sexual behaviour.
Much of the research focuses on adolescents, yet many children are exposed well before age 12. We have seen an increase in calls from schools addressing incidents involving elementary school children sharing pornography within peer groups and engaging in problematic sexual behaviours toward other children.
In 2017, we conducted informal surveys with Grade 4 and Grade 6 students. Of the Grade 4 students, 40% reported seeing uncomfortable content or feeling unsafe while gaming. Advice provided by some 8-year-olds regarding how to stay safe online was to not google “bare bums.”
Grade 6 students were asked to list concerns about going online. Responses included “popping-up nudity,” “pornography,” “people being sexually offensive,” “flashers” and “uncomfortable images sent to you.”
Of the Grade 6 students, 70% reported feeling scared, disturbed or uncomfortable online.
U.K. research found that more than one quarter of children had seen pornography by age 11, 58% had seen depictions of strangulation and 44% had seen depictions of rape.
This is not abstract. We are aware of a case where two youths were experimenting sexually and replicated strangulation during sex. The young woman is now in a vegetative state.
Children do not need to seek out pornography to be exposed to it. They do not need to seek it out. Sexually explicit advertisements appear while children are gaming, shopping online or using social media. It can often be inadvertent.
A single accidental click can trigger repeated exposure through algorithms. Also, adult pornography sites do not host only legal content. They also contain non-consensual intimate images, sexual assault material, child sexual abuse material and bestiality.
Survivors, particularly adolescents, often face significant barriers to having this content removed, compounding the harm they have already experienced.
There is an urgent need to ensure that adult content is accessible only to adults.
Effective prevention requires a multi-layered approach, including age-verification measures, education for children and meaningful support for parents.
Just as we protect children from tobacco, alcohol and R-rated films, we must protect them online. It makes no sense that a 14‑year-old cannot attend an R-rated movie but can easily access violent pornography on a smart phone.
Research has shown that exposure to pornography can have harmful impacts on children and contribute to dangerous attitudes and behaviours. The digital nature of pornography does not absolve society of responsibility — it demands it.
Thank you, and I welcome your questions.
The Chair: Thank you. Professor Vaillancourt, please go ahead.
Tracy Vaillancourt, Full Professor and Tier 1 Canada Research Chair, University of Ottawa, as an individual: Thank you, chair, and thank you, senators, for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Tracy Vaillancourt. I am a full professor and Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Youth Mental Health and Violence Prevention at the University of Ottawa. My expertise is in child and adolescent mental health, violence prevention and developmental psychology.
My research focuses on how young people develop socially and emotionally, as well as how peer and digital environments shape their development.
Childhood and adolescence are periods of rapid but uneven development. Cognitive, emotional, social and physical systems do not mature at the same pace. Adolescents are especially sensitive to peer influence, social comparisons, and rewards, while capacities for impulse control, emotional regulation and long-term judgment are still developing.
This developmental imbalance matters profoundly for young people’s exposure to online pornography.
Pornographic material is not neutral for children and youth. It is developmentally inappropriate. Young people lack the emotional maturity, relational experience and critical capacity required to contextualize what they are seeing. Exposure shapes their understanding of sex, intimacy, consent, relationships and gender, often in distorted or harmful ways, particularly with respect to women.
These developmental vulnerabilities are compounded by the fact that pornography itself has changed. It is no longer rare, hidden or difficult to access. It is ubiquitous, instantaneous, algorithmically promoted and embedded within the online environments young people already inhabit. Exposure can be accidental, repeated and difficult to avoid, as algorithms are designed to maximize engagement by pushing increasingly extreme content like non-consensual AI-generated “deepfakes” directly into the feeds of minors who lack the cognitive maturity to filter them.
Young people are also increasingly interacting with sexualized AI chatbots and virtual companions, which can blur boundaries, simulate intimacy and foster emotional attachment in ways that further complicate healthy social and sexual development.
It is worth noting that the bill’s definition of pornographic material focuses on visual content, while young people’s sexualized exposures today also occur through interactive, text‑based formats. This does not diminish the importance of Bill S-209, but it does highlight the need to continue future‑proofing policies as technologies evolve.
As a society, we tend to respond poorly to technological shifts that affect young people. We are reactive rather than anticipatory. Despite decades of developmental evidence showing that early and repeated exposure matters, we too often wait for harm to become visible before acting. Unfortunately, for many people, that window for prevention has already closed. Nevertheless, Bill S-209 represents a positive and necessary step forward. From a developmental standpoint, age verification is the appropriate mechanism. It is not an arbitrary barrier, but a policy response grounded in well-established differences in cognitive, emotional and social maturity between minors and adults. It’s a baseline protection that should have been in place before this level of exposure became normalized.
As with any age-based safeguard, privacy and data protection concerns are important and must be addressed carefully in implementation. However, those concerns should not eclipse the equally real and well-documented developmental harms associated with unrestricted access to sexually explicit material by minors.
On a final note, what I appreciate most about Bill S-209 is that it does not criminalize young people, nor does it place responsibility solely on parents, an unrealistic expectation in today’s digital environment. Instead, it appropriately places responsibility on systems and platforms that distribute adult content at scale.
From a developmental and public health perspective, restricting young persons’ access to online pornography is reasonable, evidence-informed and long overdue.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, witnesses. We will now move to questions. I will take the opportunity to ask the first question. My question will be the same to each one of the witnesses.
I do want to address Ms. Hernandez-Mora Ruiz del Castillo by saying that I read with great interest the brief you submitted to the committee and to the United Nations. In that document, you describe exposure to pornography by youth and children as a type of sexual assault causing psychological and neurobiological harm and leading to short‑ and long‑term psychological, relational and behavioural changes. You also described the pervasiveness and, frankly, the practical inevitability that children and youth will be exposed to pornography voluntarily or involuntarily. You presented data that is fundamentally shocking.
In your assessment, you have five compelling solutions, one of which being a national framework that recognizes exposure to pornography as traumatizing.
I’ll ask you this question: Given all that, how important is it that legislation be created that actually helps children who are harmed or who are going to be harmed — that fundamentally addresses the trauma that children and youth experience through exposure to pornography? I’ll ask Ms. Hernandez-Mora Ruiz del Castillo to answer the question first. I’ll ask both Ms. Classen and Ms. Vaillancourt to respond as well because I believe the testimony of all the witnesses is congruent on some of these issues.
[Translation]
Ms. Hernandez-Mora Ruiz del Castillo: Thank you for your question and your careful reading of the report, senator.
I think it’s important to be able to name things. In fact, when we have seen for years how the early use of pornography produces post-traumatic symptomatology in a way similar to other types of traumatic experiences in children, then it needs to be named from a public health perspective. It seems to be the same with pornography. For example, if pornography is not considered a dangerous product, how do you expect us to then produce effective prevention programs? We must first name the problem, consider it and introduce it into public mental health so that we can then develop tailored responses for children, adolescents and adults.
Unfortunately, today, French clinicians are not aware of or trained in the effects of pornography on children’s mental health, and I imagine it is the same in Canada.
If we had laws that introduced these concepts and encouraged the development of specialized care, we would have caregivers who were able to detect these issues in children, treat them and prevent adolescents from shaping their personalities around trauma that stunts them and promotes harmful mental health and compulsive sexuality.
[English]
Ms. Classen: Thank you very much. I absolutely agree. We find that this is very important. Currently, there is a lot of blame on parents regarding where they are in terms of preventing this and being there to mitigate the risk of children and supervise. This has abandoned parents in this country and around the world, quite frankly, because they’re on an uneven playing field. We know that parents certainly play a critical role and that they’re trying their best. We work with many parents who are vigilant. They are supervising, involved and engaged. However, the playing field is unregulated. Currently, these are digital environments that are commercial systems designed for adults, and they optimize bypassing these types of safeguards. They don’t exist.
We have other regulations in place to help parents when it comes to tobacco, alcohol and other areas. Then they can also layer on the supports that are important for children by having guardrails in place. Currently, there are guardrails, and this bill will put some of those in place by having some restrictions in terms of age-appropriate access controls that we feel are a really important first step. Thank you.
The Chair: Do you agree that it would be wise to have legislation in Canada that would provide a framework and supports for children, knowing that this trauma is almost inevitably going to occur for children?
Ms. Classen: Yes, absolutely. Unfortunately, they have been left in the Wild West, and we are slow to the gate. A response and having support in place for children are absolutely critical.
The Chair: Thank you.
Ms. Vaillancourt: I agree. We definitely need a national framework. One of the things I want to highlight, however, is that we tend to value intervention over prevention. We’re going to be putting a Band-Aid on kids who are already harmed, as you know, and that’s always going to be a challenge. I would ask that we all think about how, or maybe why, our digital environments always outpace our existing safeguards. How can we get ahead of this? If we could get ahead of this, then we wouldn’t necessarily need a national framework.
I have one example. The content of the bill really regards the visual. But we have kids who are falling in love with chatbots that are really sexually explicit, and that’s not mentioned. That is another nuance that has come out in the past few years, and again, we’re not ahead of it. I think we need to be more nimble when it comes to the safety of children.
In the interim, we need something in place to help those whom we’re failing.
The Chair: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I would like to begin by warmly thanking our three witnesses. I am the sponsor of the bill. I have been working on these issues for about five years. Chatbots did not exist back then. Obviously, this is a bill that has been evolving throughout the time I have been defending it.
I’m still going to ask you a difficult question. I absolutely agree with everything you say. However, several of the witnesses who have come here have told me that it is only anecdotal, that it is impossible to measure how many children are really affected by pornography. Also, some witnesses claimed that this type of addiction was not science-based, that it could not be properly called addiction. I would like to hear what you have to say about the scientific challenges to what you said. Is it anecdotal? What assurance do we have that you are speaking scientifically? Perhaps you could start, Ms. Hernandez-Mora Ruiz del Castillo.
Ms. Hernandez-Mora Ruiz del Castillo: Thank you, senator.
I will share with you some data that was published in 2023 by Arcom, the national digital regulator that conducts significant, robust investigations. They showed that in France, 51% of children used pornography at least once a month. In France today, 51% of 12-year-old boys are exposed to pornography on a regular basis. We do not know if it is compulsive, but it is happening at an age when they are still underdeveloped psychosexually and in terms of identity. Puberty starts, their nervous system is not yet fully formed, because that takes 25 years, and they are already exposed to hyper-arousing content that alters the biological and neurobiological building blocks of their nervous system.
We do have data showing that young people are exposed to pornography in early adolescence. Of course, it could be termed anecdotal, but it depends on what is being described. What is meant by the term “anecdotal”? For example, if you talk to juvenile protection services in France, they have tons of anecdotes. They have thousands of anecdotes of young people making pornographic videos. You can talk to the school principals who write to us every month and tell us that sodomy occurs in their washrooms. Recently, I saw a 10-year-old child who had drawn a picture containing pornographic words. He drew a sex scenario using the names of girls in his class. We see these examples constantly. Is it anecdotal? Perhaps we can consider them anecdotes, but they are so recurrent that, at some point, we can begin to assume that this is a much more common problem than we think.
As far as the clinical aspect is concerned, I obviously have a sick bias, meaning that the people I see are in very bad shape, sadly. As Ms. Vaillancourt said, I would like us to start prevention early, to detect pornography-related problems early and, when we see children, to be able to use prevention before treatment. However, because there is no prevention, because professionals are not trained to detect it and because parents are not aware, we see children shaping their personalities in silence, in compulsive use and in harmful sexual behaviour. They come to us for treatment from the age of 25 or 30, when they are adults and have a history of completely damaged development and addiction behind them.
As you say, there is a scientific debate on whether pornography addiction exists. I should specify that the debate is more neutral. It is not so much about whether the disorder exists, but rather how it should be classified. The question we ask is whether it is an addictive, impulsive or compulsive disorder. Those are psychiatric terms. That means that there is no debate on the idea of a usage disorder itself. In science, we are clear on the fact that pornography usage can become dysregulated, excessive and compulsive and cause serious deterioration in mental health, with symptoms found in substance addictions, such as tolerance. We have teenagers who, to get aroused, need to watch violence, because the earlier content no longer arouses them. They no longer respond to the original quantities and content. Over the years, they have needed to go deeper and to greater extremes to get aroused —
Senator Miville-Dechêne: I’m going to stop you there, because I don’t have an hour to talk to you.
I have another important question. I learned from you that exposure to pornography can be compared to a type of sexual assault. How did that come to light? What are the behaviours that lead you to say that? This is really quite new to me.
Ms. Hernandez-Mora Ruiz del Castillo: A sexual assault can be physical, meaning experienced in a child’s own body, but it can also be visual exposure to a situation that exceeds the child’s ability to understand it, integrate it, and above all to mobilize and regulate the feelings and emotions associated with the sexual content.
What we are seeing today, particularly with the schools that call us with children who have been exposed, is that some children have post-traumatic disorders similar to ones caused by other traumas. They have flashbacks to images they have been exposed to, which become obsessions. They can’t get them out of their head, they have major sleep disorders and they have emotional dysregulation with anxiety and panic attacks. Sometimes they even have paranoid ideation, feeling that people are looking at them in a sexual way, that they are at risk of being sexually abused, and so on.
We see a whole range of symptoms that are specifically post‑traumatic and that are found with other types of assault.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Prosper: Thank you to our witnesses for helping us and providing your testimony.
I have a question for you, Professor Vaillancourt. It really struck me when you talked about there being a need to future‑proof certain protections for children as technologies evolve. We’re in a digital environment that tends to outpace protections for children. You talked about AI chatbots and “deepfakes.”
You mentioned you’re supportive of the bill and agree with its intent and what the bill seeks to accomplish, but could you help paint that landscape of how things could potentially get worse with the evolution of technology in this digital age?
Ms. Vaillancourt: I could give you a quick lesson regarding the algorithm. Would that be helpful?
Many of you, I imagine, are not on TikTok; it doesn’t look like this would be the demographic for TikTok, no offence. Some of you are; I see your TikToks, and they’re lovely and very well constructed. Regardless, the way it works is that the more you interact with something, the more it pushes that content. So the interaction can come from looking at it for an extra second, commenting on it, forwarding, backtracking and even trying to put your thumb on it to stop it because you might report it as inappropriate. All of those things push the similar content toward you. So you could be trying to get off this algorithm, and it keeps feeding you in a way where you can’t avoid it anymore.
I will give you one example. There was a study that came out of the United Kingdom. It showed that algorithmic recommendations increased misogynistic videos shown by 56% to teens aged 13 to 15 over five days. So it’s not additive but exponential in how this works.
Because they’re smarter than us in terms of technology, our legislation is always falling behind. We’re always trying to play catch-up, and it’s a very difficult thing.
I appreciate your colleague saying that, five years ago, chatbots were not something you were worried about, but we need to be worried about them today. So how do we get legislation to keep up with this pace that is unreasonable and beyond our area of expertise? There is no real answer; I don’t know how to solve that today. However, I know that the horse is out of the barn, so to speak, and it’s galloped so far away that we can barely see its tail. We need to start getting it back. Age restrictions, at a minimum, are the way to go to get it back.
There is zero evidence that is going to be supporting the opposite viewpoint. There are some things we can do that are just common sense. I also appreciate your colleague who said that, originally, the evidence was all anecdotal and was asking where the concrete evidence is. Science is about as slow as legislation, but we have enough signals to say we have to do something. We need to be a little uncomfortable with where we are in our slow pace.
So I don’t know if I answered your question per se, but I want you to know that they’re incredibly sophisticated.
There is this whole other part where it also probably violates freedom of thought, which is an enshrined right for all humans on the planet, because they’re so good that they can read your mind and tell you things that they think you want, and then, eventually, you want them. That’s a problem, especially for a young, developing mind that really shouldn’t be exposed to any of this.
Senator Prosper: Thank you.
Ms. Vaillancourt: You’re welcome.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Thank you to all three witnesses, especially those who are jet-lagged.
I was already convinced of the need to pass this bill.
You know that this is a bill sponsored by Senator Miville-Dechêne, but then, in accordance with our constitutional obligations, it will go to the House of Commons, I hope. The House will have to do some analysis and will benefit from the very interesting studies you have presented here.
I often say that science must guide us in our decisions. Today, all three of you have provided us with scientific testimony that will be very, very helpful to us, and I thank you for that.
I’m looking for the words, but I too was really moved, touched and sometimes shocked by everything you put on the table. As you said, Ms. Hernandez-Mora Ruiz del Castillo, we have a social and even legal responsibility now that we are aware and have this information. There is an obligation to act. Thank you to all three of you.
What I take away from what you said is that these behaviours subsequently shape relationships and have consequences, with widespread exposure to violence at a younger and younger age. With this normalization of violence and a flawed understanding of consent — I’m a lawyer by training — I can see all the consequences, particularly in terms of assault, but also in any kind of social relationship. I’ll stop there because I want to ask you a question.
Usually, I don’t take so much time.
Several jurisdictions around the world have created legislation such as the bill we are studying. They are newer pieces of legislation, and you may not yet have assessed the impact of those bans in those jurisdictions. But in France, Ms. Hernandez-Mora Ruiz del Castillo, where the law has been in place since July 30, 2020 — a law that has strengthened the age verification requirements of pornography sites — is this five-year time span enough to draw any lessons? Can we draw some conclusions from the experiences of other countries that have implemented those bans?
I will start with Ms. Hernandez-Mora Ruiz del Castillo and I would like to hear from the other witnesses.
Ms. Hernandez-Mora Ruiz del Castillo: Thank you very much for your encouragement, senator.
This legislation really came into force in January 2025. Although work had been done for years by our president, Emmanuel Macron, and the entire commission that dealt with this act, including very intense work by the Senate, in which I participated, the act only came into force in January 2025.
Unfortunately, there are still several sites in France that are accessible to children, that are non-compliant and that have been seized by regulatory bodies in particular, but they are still open and accessible to children and adolescents.
Today, unfortunately, I don’t have any data. I know that many sites, including Aylo Group sites, for example, have decided to block French access to their sites themselves in order to evade the law.
It was a way of striking out at the French government.
Unfortunately, other sites are still accessible. There hasn’t been enough time to explore whether this legislation is really effective. It will be over time, since we now know that between 40% and 70% of children’s contact with pornography is involuntary. Once this legislation actually applies to all sites, we can considerably reduce children’s contact with pornography. Thank you very much.
[English]
Ms. Vaillancourt: Laws highlight what we value, and we value children. We recognize that children are vulnerable and unique in their stage of development. I also appreciate that you want things to be informed by evidence, but we should be thinking about the precautionary principle. There is enough evidence for us to move forward. We don’t need to look at this for the next three years. We can move forward with something that has common sense. What would be the worst-case scenario if we were to limit pornographic access to young people? I can’t see what the downside would be. I can see where the issues are if we don’t. As I said, I just want us to be a little nimble on this.
Ms. Classen: I completely agree with my colleagues.
We can look to other countries like the U.K. and Australia regarding some of the work that’s being done there and learn from them, as some of the anticipated fallout that could occur after the legislation didn’t actually happen. The biggest worries they had regarding what would happen as a result of it have so far not been as worrisome as they originally anticipated. I agree that we need to look at it. It is very much still in its infancy, and we need to learn from it.
However, some of the information we are hearing coming out of Australia, where there is broad work being done, is that there’s some relief for youth. Sometimes, we hear that youth might be upset about some of these restrictions. However, we’re hearing there is, in fact, some relief that there is intervention and that they do not want to be encountering this material. They are asking why it isn’t more regulated, why it is so easy to access and why the algorithms make it so readily accessible on the platforms where they are. Currently, on common social media sites and applications upon which kids are spending time, there is an incredible amount of this content readily available. When we look at whether they are coming across it, with the amount of time they spend on these applications on a daily basis, it’s inevitable that they are. We are hearing some information that is promising, and we need to sit back and wait. We can learn from other countries as well.
The action forward for Canada is really important, as we can follow suit on the great work that is being done in other countries.
The Chair: We have a few more questions, but we have to move quickly, as we have to end at 6:15 p.m.
Senator D. M. Wells: Dr. Vaillancourt, good to see you again. It’s a pleasure to cross paths in a different environment. I appreciate your support for the bill before us.
I’m wondering if you had other thoughts on how the federal government could take a more comprehensive approach. What are the other pieces that you might see as missing if we’re going to improve the mental health of children and protect them from online harms, violence and exploitation? We see this maybe as a first step in implementing other important legislation that needs to come into place.
Ms. Vaillancourt: I love that you asked this question. I also work in the space of violence across the lifespan. Another area that obviously concerns me is extreme violence and radicalization. We have some security threats that we’re not managing well. We don’t want our children to be socialized online, yet they are, and in a way that changes their tolerance level and view of civil norms and the like.
This is a step in a long suite of things you should be doing. We need to think about how technology is corrupting our most vulnerable in a way that may endanger our safety in the future. If we just think about it from a national safety point of view, do we really want to have more children being exposed to more anti‑science, anti-civil norms and anti-government rhetoric? They are on a steady diet of these things. It’s not just pornography. They are being told that you can’t trust the government, you can’t trust science and so on. This is where they are, and that worries me on the daily.
We do need to get that horse back in the barn. Unfortunately, it means we have to be a little smarter than we have been, a little bit more technically savvy, and we need to be, in a sense, anticipating where this technology is going. Yes, this is just one step.
Senator K. Wells: Saddle on the horse, in the barn, going around the race track.
Ms. Vaillancourt: I love it. Exactly.
Senator K. Wells: Thank you.
Senator Dhillon: Thank you for being here today. We have a very important question in front of us regarding the bill being discussed here today.
I’m a proponent of this bill. I want to say that because I’m going to be asking a question that may be provocative and somewhat unsettling, but I want it on the record.
Before I do that, I recognize that there is a great profit margin here. There is commerce involved. The argument being made is that there is a risk of breach of private information. Should that happen, there will be consequences. The position around that is that this is of greater importance, and when you weigh it against some of the very clear commentary here today with respect to the fact that we know of the harm and are seized with that information. Not doing anything includes us as co-conspirators in the harm that our children are going to experience and have been experiencing. As you say, we’re having trouble seeing the horse’s tail.
Let me put this in this way, and I wrote it down because I know it will be controversial, provocative and unsettling, but I feel that it needs to be on the record.
While the prevailing research identifies significant developmental and psychosocial risks associated with minors’ exposure to pornography, are there any — I put this to all the witnesses — peer-reviewed studies that demonstrate measurable positive outcomes, or is the literature uniformly risk-oriented?
Ms. Vaillancourt: No. You’re not going to find something that is positive. If you did, it would be an outlier, a one-off. Obviously, the content varies. Some of it is misogynistic, sadistic and disgusting, and some is not. Nevertheless, because we can’t control what that content is going to be, the risk is too great, so I don’t think the science would ever support the other side of that.
Ms. Classen: I would like to add to that, senator. From a common sense perspective, if we look at what pornography is created for, it certainly is not created for children in any regard and certainly not in any beneficial way, for educating children or any other capacity.
The other side of it is that the content that is available online is increasingly changing. It is not equivalent to what we used to see with off-line pornography. It is extreme. It is repeated. It is available instantaneously. It is very violent. It really has changed.
I think what is really important to understand is when we’re talking about pornography — and online pornography specifically — and the themes we’re seeing around the harm, there wouldn’t be any benefit to children. Also, in terms of looking at academic studies, ethically, there would be concerns around engaging in that type of research and study that I’m sure the other witnesses are able to speak to. Thank you.
[Translation]
Ms. Hernandez-Mora Ruiz del Castillo: Yes, that’s right. The systematic research that I’m familiar with above all highlights the link between the use of pornography and progression to violence or the internalization of rape myths, for example, or beliefs around violence. That is helpful. The research actually shows that, for particularly vulnerable audiences or individuals, early and frequent exposure to pornography promotes and even predicts progression to violence. Psychological vulnerability obviously plays into all of that.
So I have yet to find any studies that show any benefits of pornography use, among children, of course, or even among adolescents. If we want a healthy and thriving society, when we think about the ways in which our children and adolescents can become fulfilled adults, we want to help them develop consistently and with connection to themselves and others.
Viewing pornography in itself breaks down relationships and prevents self-knowledge and knowledge of others as regards sexuality, and breaks down all healthy aspects of sexuality as defined by the World Health Organization. I think we’ll have trouble finding research studies that show it can be positive and helpful for children and adolescents to watch pornography.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you. Senator Pate, it’s going to have to be very succinct.
Senator Pate: This is for all the witnesses. Given that you mentioned chatbots and given the developments and the fact that the impetus behind this is usually financial, what has been the impact in other jurisdictions? Do we have any indication yet in terms of how it has impacted those areas?
It strikes me that it’s one thing to say we want to care for children, but if there is not international collaboration and cooperation on these issues, then the financial components just move. We saw that with Pornhub. We saw that when there was first a stated intention from the Canadian government to take on this issue. Once the financial aspects became clear, suddenly the push was away and the government did not take action. It seemed to be pretty transparently motivated by those who had the power and resources to influence it.
I’m curious what you are all seeing. Are there things we should be aware of? As I just demonstrated, I’m a techno twit. I’m trying to look at something from the Epstein situation that I remember reading that talked about this issue as well.
Ms. Classen: Thank you very much. Regarding that aspect, I don’t have the expertise to speak to that question. I’m going to leave that one to my colleagues. Thank you.
[Translation]
Ms. Hernandez-Mora Ruiz del Castillo: Can you please reframe the question? I would also say that I do not have the necessary expertise.
[English]
Senator Pate: First, is there international cooperation around these issues? Has any of the legislation impacted the financial and corporate response of countries in those areas as well? It strikes me that it’s very important to say that we’re concerned about young people, but if we also don’t have some of the economic levers in play, there will be ways to get around it. We have already seen with our own government reduced interest in taking on these issues in previous years.
[Translation]
Ms. Hernandez-Mora Ruiz del Castillo: Thank you very much for your question. I’m a clinical psychologist, so I’m more of a health expert. Perhaps I could speak to the issue of international cooperation.
We know for example that there are a lot of pornography sites in France that do not comply with French law because they are not located in France. Unfortunately, European law limits a country’s ability to impose its own rules on services outside the European Union. So we have this very important structural problem: There is no effective international cooperation. There is no international legal consensus so that, when a country wants to protect children from pornography, the site can move to another country, take root there and is therefore no longer subject to the law of the country that is imposing it. International cooperation is indeed lacking in that regard.
As to the economic impact, I could not say because I don’t have the data. I assume there must be major financial issues involved because states have so much trouble taking action to protect young people from using pornography, since that would limit access or make it more difficult for adults. It seems that there are indeed significant financial issues from a government perspective, unfortunately.
[English]
Ms. Vaillancourt: I would add that a lot of money will be involved. As you can imagine, pornography makes people rich. At the end of the day, even with all of those challenges, I still think that we need something on the books that signals that we value the emotional well-being of our children, that we know that this is harmful content and that we’re willing to write something that is meaningful. Even though it may not have teeth today, it’s still the right signal for society.
Senator Pate: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you. Colleagues, that ends the question session. To all the witnesses, on behalf of the committee, I wish to thank you for your very compelling testimony here today. It was very helpful to us in helping us answer the questions we have. Thank you very much to the witnesses and, in particular, the witnesses appearing from France. I know it’s very late. Thank you for staying with us.
Honourable senators, this concludes the committee’s hearings on Bill S-209. I wish to thank the members of the committee for their interest, collaboration and high-quality deliberations on this matter.
I also remind honourable senators that the committee is scheduled to commence clause-by-clause consideration of this bill tomorrow morning. Are there any other questions or comments before we adjourn the meeting? Thank you, senators.
(The committee adjourned.)