THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, March 12, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met with videoconference this day at 10:31 a.m. [ET] to consider a draft report on Bill S-209, An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to pornographic material; and for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-205, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
Senator David M. Arnot (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning, honourable senators. 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 I’m the chair of the committee. I invite my colleagues to introduce themselves.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Julie Miville-Dechêne from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Tannas: Scott Tannas, Alberta.
[Translation]
Senator Oudar: Manuelle Oudar from Quebec.
Senator Clement: Bernadette Clement from Ontario.
[English]
Senator Simons: Paula Simons, Alberta, and I come from Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate, and I live here on the unceded, unsurrendered and unreturned territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe Nation.
[Translation]
Senator Saint-Germain: Raymonde Saint-Germain from Quebec.
[English]
Senator K. Wells: Kristopher Wells, Alberta, also from Treaty 6 territory.
Senator Dhillon: Baltej Dhillon, British Columbia.
The Chair: Thank you, senators. Honourable senators, for our first item of business today, we’ll take some time to consider the draft report on Bill S-209. As members will recall, we previously completed our clause-by-clause consideration of the bill and agreed to append observations to the report early last month.
Due to time constraints, we adjourned in the middle of discussions on proposed observations. Draft observations prepared by Senator Saint-Germain and myself have been circulated to all members of the committee, and I would like to have any comments on the proposed observations.
Senator Saint-Germain, do you want to say anything to initiate the discussion?
Senator Saint-Germain: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Perhaps it is relevant that I bring some clarity to the amendment that I proposed. This clarification is in response to the steering committee’s questions regarding an excerpt from the text of this observation. It’s not an amendment that I made. It’s an observation.
The addition of this part of the observation:
“. . . traditional approaches have proven insufficient to address these harms. It is therefore necessary to pursue alternative solutions that place responsibility on these organizations . . .”
— was made following a very pertinent comment by Senator Dhillon. The aim of this comment is to showcase those traditional methods such as administrative or financial penalties do not hit powerful organizations such as pornographic content distributors hard enough. Senator Dhillon invites the government to put forward creative and alternative methods that can effectively hold these organizations to account. This comment, therefore, invites the government to think outside the box to ensure that these companies fulfill their obligations to society.
The Chair: Senator Dhillon, would you like to make a comment? I know you worked on the proposed observation with Senator Saint-Germain.
Senator Dhillon: No, I think Senator Saint-Germain has said it well.
[Translation]
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Thank you for clarifying that. I wonder whether, for the sake of greater clarity in the observation itself, we should add the words “administrative penalties” in brackets after “alternative solutions” or “traditional approaches,” so that what we are referring to is clear.
[English]
Senator Saint-Germain: Administrative or financial penalties.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Yes.
Senator Saint-Germain: Subject to Senator Dhillon’s agreement, I would agree to that.
Senator Dhillon: I agree to that.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Otherwise, we have a very vague idea of what the traditional approaches are that —
Senator Saint-Germain: It gives more clarity. You’re right.
Senator Dhillon: That makes sense, chair.
The Chair: Do the clerks have enough information to make an adjustment to the observation?
Are there any other questions regarding the observation? Colleagues, are you in favour of the observation? I see it’s universal. Thank you. That observation will then be adopted to the report.
The second observation proposed was made by me. I’ll speak to it very briefly.
I proposed a number of amendments to the act concerning the issues that are in the observation. The amendments I proposed were not accepted by the committee. I feel it’s important to attach an observation reflecting much of the evidence that was given, including from the Canadian Council of Women, who were very concerned — as were parents — about the effect of access to pornography by young people, its traumatizing effects and the need for mental health supports for young people, as well as digital literacy initiatives and education. Therefore, the idea was to put forward, for policy-makers and legislators, consideration for the concept of a national support strategy surrounding this bill to address those issues in concert with the concerns, particularly from parents and some witnesses — quite a few witnesses, actually.
Senators, do you have questions or concerns about the observation?
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Are we talking about your consolidated observation?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Okay. Great.
The Chair: The one that you’re in great support of.
Senator Miville-Dechêne: Exactly. No, I was just wondering because we had a discussion, and that was a while ago.
The Chair: Senators, are there any concerns? Are you in agreement with attaching this observation to the report? I see consensus on that. Thank you very much.
Senators, is it agreed that the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure be empowered to approve the final version of the observations being appended to the report, in both official languages, taking into consideration today’s discussion and with any necessary editorial, grammatical or translation changes as required?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Senators, is it agreed that I report this bill as amended and with observations to the Senate in both official languages?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, senators. That completes our discussion of Bill S-209, and now we’re going to move to the next order of business.
Senators, we’ll now move on to our principal item of business today and begin clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-205, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act.
Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-205, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Thank you.
Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Thank you.
Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Thank you.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the alternative title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Shall clause 2 carry?
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division. Shall clause 3 carry?
Sorry. There is an amendment proposed here by Senator Simons. It’s numbered PS-205-3-3-13. It has been previously circulated. I’m going to ask Senator Simons to speak to her amendment.
Senator Simons: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I will be advancing a series of three amendments, or three steps, at clause by clause, which I need to explain in advance because this plan will only work if all three are agreed upon by the committee.
There are three provisions in this bill, each of which would establish a requirement for a mandatory transfer of an inmate to a hospital for the purposes of a mental health assessment.
This has been a controversial proposal, in part because it’s not clear if that is an additional cost. We had, last go around, the PBO weigh in on this, but some people still felt that this was potentially a question that required a Royal Recommendation.
But I think, even leaving that aside, we heard from a number of witnesses who suggested that this could create an undue burden on the health care systems of various provinces, and that may be an unintended consequence that could trip up the bill.
So, after consultation with a number of senators on the committee, including the sponsor, I am going to suggest that we eliminate all the provisions that deal with mandatory transfer.
I propose to simply excise these three provisions from the bill. Fortunately, this can be done without affecting any other part of the bill’s operation. The three provisions in question are subsection 15.1(2.02), section 29.02 and subsection 37.1(3).
So, in order to remove these three provisions, it will be necessary to amend clause 3, to vote down clause 4 — we just say “nay” to clause 4 — and to amend clause 6. These provisions are located on pages 3 and 4 of the bill.
So, having given that as a preamble, I now move:
That Bill S-205 be amended in clause 3, on page 3, by deleting lines 13 to 21.
The Chair: I’m going to ask Senator Pate to respond to this amendment and perhaps the effect of the other proposed amendments, which you know about, and hear your comments, please.
Senator Pate: Certainly, the rationale for putting this in the bill in the first place is the increased focus in provinces, and particularly federally, on the need to provide adequate mental health services for folks who are in communities who are being criminalized, sometimes in part to get them treatment, and then sometimes getting federal sentences because the treatment that’s available on provincial remand and in sentenced custody is insufficient.
Certainly, as I mentioned when we were studying the bill, there is a decision out of Ontario that is on appeal at the moment and will likely go to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Warren case involving the decision of Justice Pomerance to order that Mr. Warren be placed in a hospital instead of the federal penitentiary based on evidence of what had happened to him during his previous incarceration. He may now have just been transferred to a hospital, finally, almost two years after that decision was taken.
Ultimately, we heard from many, including many psychiatrists such as Dr. Kravtsenyuk, Dr. Chaimowitz and Dr. Watt. We heard from Howard Sapers, who was the correctional investigator and on the minister’s advisory committee. We heard from a number of civil society organizations and academics, including the Assembly of First Nations, the Mi’kmaw Legal Support Network, the CBA, Professor Wildeman, the DisAbled Women’s Network of Canada, the family members of folks, the John Howard Society and the Canadian Prison Law Association that these are the kinds of recommendations they are making as well. We also heard from the Royal in Ottawa and some of the folks who are working at the provincial level, like Dr. Simpson, who doesn’t work in the federal system but works with CAMH.
The feeling is that they are not well resourced in the provinces. I don’t disagree with that. I think this is an issue whose time will come. Given that has been the main stumbling block in moving this bill forward in the past, and maybe in the future, I’m resigned to this, if I can put it that way. So I would say on division, but I certainly appreciate that Senator Simons has done this in full consultation with us on this. I certainly understand this is an issue for a number of senators, so I’m prepared to leave it at that for now.
The Chair: Are there any questions, comments or concerns?
Senator Batters: Thanks very much for bringing this forward because that is, as you know, something I’ve been concerned about throughout the study of this bill and its previous iteration.
One thing I wondered about is this: I recognize that the summary is not officially part of the bill, but if this bill does pass the Senate, it will go then to the House of Commons. I’m kind of thinking that maybe subparagraph (a) of the summary might need to be adjusted. I don’t know if there is anything in the preamble that does, but I do notice that subparagraph (a) might need to —
Senator Pate: That’s a great observation, Senator Batters. Perhaps we could change it to “may be” because it already is in the bill. Section 29 already allows that to happen, but we could change that wording to “may be transferred to a hospital.” That’s already in the law, but thank you for pointing that out.
The Chair: All right. In order to deal with this logically, I guess we’ll go through each one of these at the appropriate time. With respect to Senator Simons’ motion to amend clause 3, page 3, senators, are you in agreement to adopt the amendment?
Senator Batters: I forget — did you read it at the beginning?
Senator Simons: I can read it again. It’s really short.
Senator Batters: I wasn’t sure if it was read out.
Senator Simons: “That Bill S-205 be amended in clause 3, on page 3, by deleting lines 13 to 21.”
The Chair: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: On division. Shall clause 4 be carried?
Some Hon. Senators: No.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: So clause 4 is defeated on division. Are there any questions? Okay. Thank you. Shall clause 5 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division.
Senator Simons, I think this is the next place.
Senator Simons: I move:
That Bill S-205 be amended in clause 6, on page 4,
(a) by replacing line 9 with the following:
“6 Paragraph 37.1(2)(a) of the Act is replaced”;
(b) by deleting lines 14 to 24.
Eventually, I will get used to this kind of legal language, but this effectively does what we previously discussed.
The Chair: Are there any comments on this amendment? There are none. Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division. Shall clause 7 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division. Shall clause 8 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division. Shall clause 9 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division. Shall clause 10 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division. Shall clause 11 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division. Shall clause 1, which contains the alternative title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. Very good. That is carried. Shall the preamble carry?
Senator Simons: This is where Senator Batters had a suggestion for an amendment. Is this the preamble?
The Chair: Do you want to make an amendment to the words “may be” as a formal amendment to the preamble?
Senator Pate: That’s in the summary.
Senator Simons: Do we need to make a change? I’m advised that we can’t amend the summary.
Senator Pate: No, we can, but —
Senator Simons: For the preamble.
Senator Pate: No, we don’t need to amend the preamble.
Senator Simons: Okay.
The Chair: I believe the preamble does not need to be amended, so we can vote on that.
Colleagues, shall the preamble carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
With respect to the amendment of the summary, I’m advised that senators must agree to this.
Is it agreed that the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel be authorized to make necessary technical, grammatical or other required non-substantive changes resulting from the amendments adopted by the committee, in both official languages, including updating cross-references and renumbering provisions?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed. That will cover the summary change.
Shall the bill, as amended, carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
An Hon. Senator: On division.
The Chair: Carried, on division. Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
Colleagues, is it agreed that I will report this bill, as amended, with observations, to the Senate in both official languages?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Colleagues, I believe that concludes the agenda for today.
That being the case, this meeting will come to an end. The steering committee meeting can happen right away.
(The committee adjourned.)