Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Bill

Honourable senators, I rise today as the critic for Bill S-209, An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to pornographic material. I speak today both as the official critic and as a supporter of this legislation because the objective at the heart of this bill — protecting children — deserves our full support and calls for concrete action.

We are talking about a reality that worries parents, educators and a growing number of Canadians: the early and unwanted exposure of young people to online pornography and, more broadly, the ease with which explicitly sexual content now circulates without effective safeguards. If we choose to do nothing, we send a troubling message: that the state is powerless in the face of a digital transformation that directly affects children. As Lord James Bethell, a member of the United Kingdom’s House of Lords who took part in working on children’s online safety in the U.K., stated:

If not this bill you’re considering, then what? Senator Miville-Dechêne’s bill is thoughtful and proportionate. If Parliament chooses not to adopt it, I urge you to offer an alternative, because doing nothing is no longer defensible. The evidence of harm is overwhelming. The tools to act are available. The public, especially parents, are demanding change, and the tsunami of AI-enabled porn aimed at our children is absolutely terrifying.

I share that view. Doing nothing is no longer defensible.

That said, I want to be very clear: Supporting this bill does not mean ignoring its risks. That is precisely where the work of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has been so valuable.

The committee conducted a serious and thorough review. It heard from witnesses with very different perspectives: academic experts, privacy organizations, legal practitioners, government officials, industry representatives and technical stakeholders. That diversity of viewpoints highlighted three broad concerns: the protection of privacy and data minimization, the scope of the bill to ensure it is not overly broad and the risk of overblocking, that is, measures that could capture lawful content or services that are not the intended target.

These concerns are legitimate. During its study, several witnesses pointed to concrete safeguards that should be built into the bill. Privacy Commissioner of Canada Philippe Dufresne, for example, noted that his two core recommendations on an earlier iteration of the bill — narrowing the scope and strengthening privacy criteria — were reflected in Bill S-209 as introduced and studied by the committee. He said:

I support this bill. During my appearance in May 2024 before the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security regarding a previous iteration of the bill, I provided two primary recommendations: one, to limit the scope of application of the bill; and, two, to make certain enhancements to the criteria for prescribed age-verification and age-estimation methods to ensure that privacy is protected.

I am very pleased to see that they have been incorporated in Bill S-209. The bill now stipulates that the Governor-in-Council must “ensure,” rather than “consider,” the criteria in question, which I believe is an important improvement. The added requirement to limit the collection of personal information to that which is strictly necessary for the age verification or estimation has also enhanced the bill from a privacy perspective.

We also heard important warnings about data being entrusted to third parties. Criminal defence lawyer Brian Hurley put it this way:

I come to this from the perspective of a defence lawyer who has been working in Alberta for 32 years, doing nothing but criminal defence, and I want to indicate that I am concerned about any law that interferes with access to a lawful product or form of expression and puts private data of citizens acting lawfully in the hands of third parties.

Even from the government side, we were reminded that challenges remain.

That is precisely why I want to emphasize a central point: The committee did its job. Thank you. Clause-by-clause study was not a formality. It was an opportunity for a largely consensual effort to better frame the bill and make it more targeted. Through amendments, the committee addressed several blind spots that were fuelling criticism and concern.

First, the scope was better defined. The definition of the targeted content was narrowed to ensure the regime applies to pornography in the strict sense — explicit representations intended to provoke sexual excitement — and not, indirectly, to mainstream cultural or artistic works that may include nudity without being pornographic. In other words, the committee reduced the risk of unintended consequences and brought the text back to its true purpose.

Second, the committee better protected internet intermediaries without undermining the bill’s objective. By clarifying the exemption for internet service providers, it reduced the risk that the bill would unnecessarily capture actors who are not, in practice, commercial distributors of pornography but who may incidentally facilitate access to content.

Third — and this is a major point — the committee reduced the risks related to overblocking and proportionality. Serious concerns had been raised that a blocking or takedown mechanism could lead to excessive consequences, including impacts on lawful content that should not be captured. The committee therefore removed the provision that, in the initial version, explicitly opened the door to orders that could result in the removal or blocking of non-pornographic content simply because it was located in the same place as the targeted content. In other words, it eliminated a mechanism that could, in practice, lead to overly broad measures and, therefore, to the overblocking of lawful content. With this change, courts retain the authority to order measures necessary to protect young people but without the law itself encouraging or normalizing the idea that content outside pornography could be affected.

Fourth, privacy protection was strengthened more clearly. The committee tightened the principle of data minimization. Personal information collected for the purposes of age verification or age estimation must be used only for that purpose and not for other uses.

I also want to acknowledge the importance of a measure brought forward by the bill’s sponsor: coming into force by order-in-council. In a field where technology evolves rapidly, where regulations will need to specify methods and where public confidence will depend on concrete safeguards, a flexible coming-into-force provision gives the government the necessary space to ensure that mechanisms, guidelines and privacy protections are truly ready, rather than forcing a rushed implementation.

With that, I would like to thank the bill’s sponsor, Senator Miville-Dechêne, for her perseverance, her tireless work and for keeping this issue front and centre.

She is a champion, a Canadian champion and, perhaps, a world champion. We can debate the means, but the objective of protecting young people should never be a source of division.

I also thank committee colleagues from all sides of the chamber who contributed to improving the text of the bill. This work was not done in isolation. It was done by listening, testing arguments and taking seriously the concerns raised.

In the end, I believe we now have before us a bill that, while recognizing that perfect enforcement does not exist, offers a stronger and more proportionate framework.

That is why, honourable senators, I support Bill S-209, as amended, and encourage the Senate to adopt it without delay. The message we must send today is simple: When it comes to protecting children in the digital space, inaction is not an option.

Thank you.