Honourable senators, thank you for allowing me to speak on this very important bill.

I rise today as critic for Bill S-209, An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to pornographic material. This bill is a successor to Bill S-210 from the previous Parliament, which aimed to protect minors from exposure to sexually explicit content online.

Bill S-210 was passed by the Senate in 2023 and garnered multi-party support in the House of Commons before the last session ended. Now reintroduced as Bill S-209, the proposed legislation maintains the same fundamental objective while incorporating several important amendments to the previous bill, which Senator Miville-Dechêne articulated well in her sponsor speech at second reading.

Senator Miville-Dechêne, thank you for your dedicated advocacy and exceptional efforts over the years.

The underlying purpose of Bill S-209 remains to safeguard young people from the well-documented harms of easily accessible online pornography. In today’s digital age, minors can encounter hardcore pornographic content with alarming ease, often merely by claiming to be adults on popular websites. Research indicates that the average age of first exposure to pornography in Canada is around 12 years of age, and millions of teenagers consume pornographic material regularly.

Health experts and the bill’s sponsor, Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne, have characterized underage pornography consumption as a public health problem. They point to studies suggesting that early and frequent exposure can distort a young person’s understanding of healthy relationships, reinforce harmful sexual norms and even stimulate addiction-like effects on the developing brain. Simply put, pornography was never designed for children, and its uncontrolled availability poses risks to their well-being.

The bill’s short title, the protecting young persons from exposure to pornography act, emphasizes its preventive aim. Many commercial adult websites today attempt only the briefest of age checks: for example, a pop-up asking the user to confirm he or she is over 18, with no verification. Not surprisingly, this does little to stop curious adolescents from accessing the site.

Bill S-209 seeks to move beyond ineffective honour-system warnings toward a more enforceable requirement that pornographic content online be gated by robust age verification. The objective is not to criminalize consensual adult viewing of pornography but to mandate reasonable steps so that minors cannot access it. In essence, this is a child-protection measure that balances public health and safety concerns with Canadians’ expectations that adults should retain access to lawful content.

Achieving that balance — protecting young people from harm without unduly infringing on the rights and privacy of adults — is the central challenge with which this legislation grapples. Bill S-209 reproduces the core framework of the former Bill S-210, while introducing notable amendments to address concerns that were raised during its earlier consideration.

The bill replaces the term “sexually explicit material” with “pornographic material” and provides a precise definition in the bill itself. Under Bill S-209, pornographic material is defined as:

. . . any photographic, film, video or other visual representation . . . the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a person’s genital organs or anal region or, if the person is female, her breasts . . . .

However, it explicitly excludes the term “child pornography.” This change was made for clarity and to avoid the broader implications of the Criminal Code’s term “sexually explicit material,” which had raised concerns.

The core obligation in the bill remains that any commercial website or organization making pornographic material available must ensure that persons under 18 cannot access it by instituting a rigorous age-check mechanism.

Importantly, Bill S-209 provides more options for technological compliance. Whereas the previous bill only mentioned age verification, the new bill allows for age-estimation methods as well. This addition acknowledges that emerging technologies might estimate a user’s age without collecting as much personal data as traditional ID verification. An organization can potentially avoid prosecution under the act if it has implemented a government-approved “prescribed age-verification or age-estimation method” to restrict access to adults only.

The bill addresses this by requiring any approved method to meet a high standard of accuracy. If age-estimation technologies prove insufficiently reliable, they may not receive government approval under this framework, and providers would then default to more conventional age-verification methods. The intent is to allow flexibility, provided that youth are effectively protected.

Another clarifying amendment in Bill S-209 is the addition of clause 6, which explicitly excludes certain service providers from the realm of this law. It states that an organization which provides a service that is “incidentally and not deliberately . . . used to search for, transmit . . . store or access content” is not considered to be making pornographic material available for commercial purposes. The aim here is to avoid capturing internet mediators such as internet service providers, or ISPs, cloud storage providers, search engines, social media platforms or other web services whose primary function is not to distribute pornography.

In the past, there was concern that the bill’s broad wording could implicate companies that enable access to this content. This new clause provides greater certainty that liability under this act is intended for content providers and not mere conduits or platforms that might inadvertently host or link to some adult content. The inclusion of this clause shows a good-faith effort to target the bill narrowly at commercial pornography sources, not the wider internet infrastructure.

The enforcement outline in Bill S-209 remains similar to that of its predecessor, with some refinements.

Non-compliance is criminalized. Any organization that, for commercial purposes, makes pornographic material available to a young person can be charged with an offence under this act. The penalties upon conviction are up to $250,000 for a first offence and up to $500,000 for subsequent offences, significant sums meant to incentivize compliance.

In summary, Bill S-209 retains the core principle of making it an offence to expose minors to online pornography while adding clearer definitions, more tech options, tighter privacy rules and explicit limits on scope.

While Bill S-209 is narrowly focused on restricting minors’ access to pornographic material online, it is important to recognize the wider context and mounting concerns in society.

Increasingly, experts and researchers are sounding the alarm over how unregulated access to pornography may be shaping the minds and behaviours of young people.

Beyond legality, there are troubling developmental and cultural dynamics at play. Pornography online often follows a pattern of escalation, beginning with relatively benign content and progressing toward more extreme, violent or degrading material as users seek novel stimuli. This mirrors addictive behaviours and can, over time, desensitize viewers to real-world harm, alter sexual expectations and erode empathy. From a public policy perspective, this raises serious concerns about the long-term societal consequences of widespread exposure to such content on children and youth.

As mentioned by previous speakers on this bill, it has also been observed that many young people today are being exposed to sexually graphic imagery before they have the maturity to process it.

On many mainstream pornography sites, violent and disturbing content is accessible without barriers, often without so much as a click-through age warning.

While adults have the legal right to access explicit material, Parliament also has a duty to examine how technology is undermining the practical safeguards that once shielded young people from content that is developmentally harmful.

Bill S-209 does not seek to criminalize adult behaviour, but to place necessary protections around those who are most vulnerable — our children and youth — in an era when the boundaries between legal content and harmful conduct have become dangerously blurred.

During the bill’s previous iteration and continuing with Bill S-209, a variety of stakeholders — child protection advocates, parents’ groups, privacy commissioners and internet freedom organizations — have engaged with the proposal.

A common question is this: Will this law actually work in practice? It’s safe to say that mandating age-gating will at least create a barrier, making it less likely that an average child will stumble onto explicit sites.

However, some experts caution that, technologically, it is much easier said than done to prevent determined youth from viewing online pornography. Teens today are often tech savvy and may find workarounds, such as using VPNs or proxy sites to bypass age checks or simply migrating to platforms not covered by the law.

Stakeholders have noted that the bill does not mandate a specific solution, leaving it to website operators to choose a method, subject to government approval, which could lead to uneven implementation.

Enforcement will also be challenging on a technical level. Many pornography sites are hosted abroad and can change domains, making them moving targets. These feasibility issues do not undermine the bill’s goal. However, they do suggest that even with a law in place, vigilance and technological adaptability will be needed to make the protections effective.

Privacy advocates and civil liberties organizations have been among the most vocal critics of this initiative. They acknowledge the importance of protecting children but warn that poorly implemented age verification could create new privacy risks for adults and minors alike.

However, Bill S-209 makes privacy a priority, as discussed, by requiring minimal data use and third-party verification services. These measures have been welcomed in principle by privacy experts; still, some point out that any system of verification introduces friction and data collection that did not exist before.

Even if personal data is deleted immediately, users might be required to log in via a third-party service or provide some token of identity.

Anonymity for lawful adult consumption of content intended to arouse sexual desire has been the norm on the internet; this bill, unavoidably, changes that norm. To its credit, however, Bill S-209 tries to mitigate this by mandating government-approved methods only. Presumably, these would be vetted for privacy guarantees.

Nonetheless, the Privacy Commissioner has recommended continued oversight to ensure that age verification doesn’t become a pretext for data mining or surveillance.

The privacy provisions in subclause 12(2) explain that before prescribing any age-verification or age-estimation method, the Governor in Council must ensure that it is highly effective, operated by an independent third party, protects user privacy, uses personal information solely for verification purposes, limits data collection to what is strictly necessary, destroys the data once verification is complete and complies with best practices with respect to both age assurance and privacy protection.

This will need to be rigorously upheld in practice.

In short, stakeholders want to ensure we protect young people without creating new vulnerabilities with respect to Canadians’ personal information.

It’s important to note that several U.S. states — including Louisiana, Texas and Utah — have already implemented legislation requiring pornography websites to verify the age of users.

In response, platforms such as Pornhub either adopted compliance measures or chose to withdraw entirely from those jurisdictions.

These real-world examples highlight both the feasibility of age-verification laws and the practical challenges of enforcement.

Canada can learn from these early efforts by analyzing their regulatory frameworks, technological approaches and the pushback from industry. Doing so will help inform a balanced approach under Bill S-209, one that is both effective and respectful of privacy and legal rights.

Another area of discussion is whether the bill’s scope is appropriately defined and limited. The change to the definition of “pornographic material” has been positively received as it ties the law to clear, explicit sexual content and excludes things like sex education or nude art.

However, questions remain about which websites will be subject to the law and how it will apply in borderline cases. For instance, the legislation targets any organization making pornographic material available for commercial purposes.

Large mainstream platforms generally prohibit pornography in their terms of service, but, in practice, some explicit content might exist on these platforms. Are those platforms expected to institute age gates for all content just in case, or would they be deemed incidental under clause 6, which sets out the core legal obligation of the bill?

The new exclusion of incidental services aims to shield players like internet service providers and search engines. Overall, most agree the intent is to target mainstream pornography websites frequented by minors, not to go on a moral crusade against all adult content on the internet.

The committee will need to examine the definitions and exclusions to ensure the law’s scope is appropriately tight.

In presenting these concerns, I wish to stress that there is widespread agreement on the objective of the bill. Virtually every stakeholder agrees that children should not be viewing hardcore pornography and that this is a serious problem to address.

The debate is about methods and potential unintended consequences.

Advocates for the bill argue that we cannot afford inaction: they note that requiring age verification is not about censorship of content, but about responsible access control similar to how we treat other adult-only products.

As legislators, our duty is to weigh these perspectives and ensure that if we move forward we do so with eyes open and mitigation in place for the risks identified.

I believe the enhancements in Bill S-209, the refined definitions, privacy conditions and so on, demonstrate that we have been listening to feedback and adapting the policy accordingly. Further constructive input from committee witnesses can help us refine the bill even more.

Honourable senators, it is instructive to recall how we arrived at this point. Bill S-209 did not emerge in a vacuum: it is the product of ongoing legislative work on this issue over the past few years, led by Senator Miville-Dechêne.

The idea was first introduced in an earlier Senate bill, Bill S-203, in the Forty-third Parliament, later reintroduced as Bill S-210 in the Forty-fourth Parliament by Senator Miville-Dechêne who has been a tireless advocate for child protection online.

Bill S-210 was studied by the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in 2022, which heard from a range of witnesses. The Senate passed S-210 in April 2023, after fulsome second and third reading debates, in which senators from all groups voiced their perspectives, broadly supporting the intent but also noting some of the challenges I have outlined.

In the House of Commons the bill was sponsored by former MP Karen Vecchio and received strong, multi-party support, passing second reading by a vote of 189 to 133. It was reviewed by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security in the spring of 2024. However, due to time constraints and the prorogation of Parliament and subsequent election, the bill did not receive final passage before the parliamentary session ended.

She is a champion, indeed.

The key amendments we see in Bill S-209 — the terminology change, inclusion of age estimation, stronger privacy regulations and exclusion of intermediaries — can be directly traced to the feedback received during the last bill’s journey through the Senate and the House of Commons.

We should also engage with those with international experience. For instance, we should hear about what has worked or failed in jurisdictions like the U.K., France and certain U.S. states that have implemented age-gating laws for adult content. We have an opportunity now to benefit from hindsight and ensure a thorough examination. Our end goal is the same: protect minors effectively while respecting the rights of others.

This bill is, without question, a complex undertaking at the intersection of technology, privacy, law and social values. As the critic of this bill, I support the objective and many aspects of the mechanism, but I also remain mindful of the concerns and questions that have been raised.

This chamber is known for its thoroughness and its role as a chamber of sober second thought. In that spirit, I urge all honourable senators to support the timely passage of Bill S-209 so we can move forward with protecting young Canadians in the digital age.

I believe it deserves to proceed to committee, where we can scrutinize the bill and ensure that the law will function as intended. We should hear from technical experts, child development specialists, privacy commissioners, industry representatives and other stakeholders to inform our recommendations.

In closing, protecting young Canadians in the digital sphere is the goal that transcends partisanship, but time is of the essence. Every day children are potentially encountering harmful content.

Honourable senators, we need to address this important issue and protect our youth as swiftly and effectively as possible. Thank you.

Honourable senators, given this extremely compelling subject, which has our support, and knowing it has been reintroduced — and the fact that no committees have been struck at this point — I move that further debate be adjourned until the next sitting of the Senate so we have a chance to look at both.