Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Bill

Moved third reading of Bill S-209, An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to pornographic material, as amended.

She said: Honourable senators, I move that the bill, as amended, be read the third time.

I rise to speak at the third reading of Bill S-209, An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to pornographic material. This is the third time I have tried to get this bill passed in order to protect children. I will work tirelessly on their behalf and on behalf of Canadian parents who have been telling me for five years that this law is necessary.

The committee conducted an exhaustive review of the bill. We heard from 33 witnesses from here and abroad — from Europe and Australia — who came to discuss their child protection laws and to confirm, with supporting studies, the dangers of allowing minors to be exposed to pornography.

Noni Classen, from the renowned Canadian Centre for Child Protection, provided the committee with stark and explicit examples of the content children are exposed to online. She testified as follows:

There is evidence that exposure to pornography can cause harm to children, particularly when that material is violent, degrading or illegal.

In our experience, adult online pornography is often extreme, with more frequent depictions of violence, sadism, bondage and torture, and it often depicts individuals who are made to appear younger. For example and for clarity, in one video that is readily available, the following occurs: A naked female young adult is shown on her hands and knees while a male is penetrating her from behind. In the background, there are at least six other naked men visible, all of whom appear to be engaged in masturbation. The men take turns engaging in anal intercourse with the female, one after the other. The video includes close-ups of the female’s face, where she is shown smiling at the camera. Toward the end of the video, the female is shown on her knees, performing fellatio on each of the men, in succession, who are lined up around the room.

I have a question for you, colleagues: Do you really want your children or grandchildren to be exposed to those scenes?

Maria Hernandez-Mora Ruiz del Castillo, the renowned French clinical psychologist who treats young adults who are addicted to pornography, told the committee that early exposure to porn is literally a form of sexual assault. She said, and I quote:

Children who are exposed to pornography suffer a traumatic intrusion into their innocent psychological world. They cannot understand the images, but they can integrate them into their psyche. The images act as a traumatic shock that causes confusion, shame, anxiety and even dissociation. This is not passing curiosity with no effect. It is a serious attack on children’s psychic integrity and future mental health.

The clinician concludes that among children:

Pornography therefore shapes the circuits of desire, excitement and sex before strong emotional and educational frameworks are established.

The psychologist also emphasizes that violence is learned through pornography, since approximately 50% of mainstream pornography includes physical or verbal violence against women, who respond in a neutral or positive way.

Children therefore learn that violence can be associated with pleasure, that fear can coexist with arousal and that disgust can be desirable.

This leads to confusion and the normalization of violent practices, which can have tragic consequences. In France, one in two sexual assaults of a minor is committed by another minor.

Even more troubling, a recent study conducted in Finland showed that children exposed to pornography very early in life are more likely to seek out illegal child pornography content later on. The study by Protect the Children found that, by age 18, 57% of respondents had actively searched for child sexual abuse material online.

This compounding harm is compelling proof of why a law is needed. The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs also examined the mechanisms proposed by the bill. We adopted nine amendments that further strengthen and clarify Bill S-209. This successful team effort clearly shows the importance of sober second thought by Senate committees; in this case, it was a sober third review of this bill.

The first amendment, which is the simplest to explain, better clarifies the definition of what constitutes pornographic material, a concept of key importance in Bill S-209. The Criminal Code definition, which was frankly a little outdated and by some accounts too broad in scope, was set aside in favour of a more realistic, practical definition.

It now refers to material that shows the genital organs or anal region of a person engaged or depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity and that is intended to cause sexual excitement. We’re not talking about nude breasts being considered pornographic material or worrying that simple images of nudity will be targeted. I would remind you that, from the beginning, my bill has included an exception for pornographic material with a legitimate purpose related to science, medicine, education or the arts.

Another amendment adds a system of administrative monetary penalties and fines for pornography platforms that fail to comply with the law, that is, that fail to verify or estimate the age of their customers before giving them access to their site.

The government will define this system and the amount of the fines during the regulatory phase. This is in addition to a penalty that is already included in the bill, namely that the Federal Court would block access to offending sites in Canada. These penalties are similar to what is being done in other countries.

I took into account criticism about the potentially overly broad scope of Bill S-209 by proposing three amendments, which were adopted. A question arose: Does the bill target only pornography platforms, or does it also cover social media platforms, such as X, which distribute a lot of pornography consumed by minors?

Once again, we’re giving the government some leeway at the regulatory stage to decide what’s covered and what isn’t. Under clause 12, the Governor in Council may exclude certain porn distributors, such as social media platforms, from the application of the act.

This amendment struck me as all the more relevant given that the government is due to present a new version of the online harms bill, which will have an impact on content unsuitable for children on social media. It therefore needs some leeway.

Lastly, we’re now leaving it up to the government to decide when this bill comes into force, rather than prescribing a time frame of several years, because nothing is straightforward in internet legislation. Lord James Bethell, of the British House of Lords, told the committee that the U.K. spent two and a half years engaging with porn platforms and the web giants in order to refine the regulations.

Let us return to the wording of the bill and concerns that users’ anonymity might not be respected during age verification or estimation. Privacy Commissioner Philippe Dufresne, who has been critical in the past, has, this time, expressed satisfaction with the amendments, which ensure stronger privacy protections in the latest version of the bill.

In particular, clause 12 has been strengthened to require the government to take into account a set of stricter criteria, including limiting the collection of personal information to what is strictly necessary and selecting a highly effective method for conducting age verification or age estimation. The methods will be chosen at the regulatory stage, as technology is evolving quickly.

The more time goes by, the more convinced I am that we need legislation to protect children from exposure to porn. What reinforces my conviction is that several countries and several U.S. states have taken decisive action, and there have been no reports of data breaches or privacy violations of porn users, contrary to the predictions of those opposed to any form of regulation.

Australia is leading the way: Three months after banning those under 16 from accessing social media, the Australian authorities have, since March 8, required internet users to prove they are 18 years old to access pornographic content, adult video games, sexually explicit chatbots or anything that encourages suicide or eating disorders. Offenders face fines of AUS$50 million.

The eSafety Commissioner of Australia appeared before our committee to describe what I would consider a real turning point. She stated that Australia:

. . . will require the search engines . . . to blur explicit violence, like the videos . . . but also pornography so that kids cannot come across this incidentally, accidentally and “in your face.”

Our research has shown that almost 30% of Australian kids under the age of 13 — usually around the ages of 9 and 10 — are not deliberately seeking out pornography but come across this by using a simple search engine or playing games. And they describe this as being “accidental, unsolicited and in your face.”

France, Germany and the United Kingdom have introduced legislation. Lord Bethell of the House of Lords reassured our committee:

We’ve heard libertarian arguments that age verification threatens privacy; in practice, it hasn’t. The U.K. has adopted privacy-preserving age estimation technologies such as facial analysis and document checks, but it is shown that they do not store personal data. These systems are already being used in banking, gambling and alcohol sales. . . .

He continued, “The goal is not perfection, it’s harm reduction.”

He also said, “The U.K. example shows this is achievable.”

Lastly, Lord Bethell said, “That’s why I urge Canada to act now. Delay only prolongs the harms to children.”

Things are also happening on the European Union side. Adult content platforms, such as Pornhub, Stripchat, XNXX and XVideos, have been charged with breaching European Union rules by letting children access pornographic content on their sites. It could lead to hefty fines, as much as 6% of their global annual turnover.

The tide is turning, and states are demanding accountability. Child protection is now at the forefront, and that is reassuring. But what is Canada doing? We are falling seriously behind, as there are still no concrete measures in place to protect Canadian children online.

Canadian Identity and Culture Minister Marc Miller is expected to introduce a new version of his online harms bill, as the previous version — Bill C-63 — died on the Order Paper. But Bill C-63 did not include any explicit requirement for porn sites to verify the age of their users. I hope the new version will be more comprehensive and precise because the psychological well-being of our children is at stake.

I saw a glimmer of hope earlier while listening to Minister Solomon. Believe it or not, he mentioned age verification. That is a major step forward, because in all the time I’ve spent advocating for the need to protect children, no Liberal minister has ever uttered the words “age verification” before. So who knows? Maybe we are going to make progress.

In conclusion, in the absence of assurances from the government, I will continue to support this bill and speak out loud and clear on this issue.

Colleagues, I urge you to support Bill S-209 at third reading so that it may be sent to the House of Commons.

Thank you.

Honourable senators, I rise today in support of Bill S-209.

First, I would like to commend Senator Miville-Dechêne on her leadership and perseverance.

Bravo, senator.

I would also like to thank all the members of the Legal Committee: the chair, Senator Arnot; the deputy chair, Senator Batters; and all the members who participated in the work on Bill S-209, specifically Senators Clement, Dhillon, Pate, Prosper, Saint-Germain, Simons, Tannas and K. Wells. Thank you, colleagues.

Why am I speaking today to support Bill S-209? I would like to address the legal issues, not only from the perspective of international commitments to protect young people but also from the perspective of how the right to equality is conceived and understood through the concept of consent.

The scientific data and testimony we heard during our study show that exposure to pornographic content at too young an age leaves deep scars, shapes behaviour, distorts relationships and undermines the fundamental principles of our society.

The scientific data is clear and consistent. The average age of first exposure to pornography is around 11 years old, often before puberty. Data published in international studies on exposure to pornography indicate that 40% to 70% of adolescents report having been exposed to pornographic content unintentionally. According to a 2023 study by the French Regulatory Authority for Audiovisual and Digital Communication, 51% of boys aged 12 to 13 visit pornographic websites at least once a month.

We also heard from the Canadian Centre for Child Protection that research consistently links this exposure in young people to shame, anxiety, difficulty forming healthy relationships and, above all, a distorted understanding of consent. All this data leads me to the point I wish to address here today.

You are probably aware that I trained as a lawyer. Over the course of my career, I saw how easily a poor understanding of consent can lead to serious legal consequences, especially when assault and suffering are involved. Experts teach us that this understanding develops very early in life. That is why early exposure to pornography is such a serious concern.

The brain of a child or teen is extremely plastic and malleable. It assimilates the relationship models that it’s exposed to and learns what relationships, mutual respect and informed consent mean.

Experts and clinicians explained to us that exposure to pornography places the child in an extremely potent learning situation, where focused attention, bodily activation and gratification combine to cement certain images in the child’s long-term memory. Together, these three factors shape the circuits of the child’s sexuality before he or she has time to develop a solid emotional and educational foundation.

Researchers call this a distorted relational model. The child absorbs patterns where domination substitutes for dialogue, where refusing is not an option, and where respect for the other person is non-existent. Once entrenched, these patterns shape the way the child views his or her own intimate or social relationships as they grow into adulthood. That inevitably has a bearing on the legal aspect of consent, because a person cannot consent freely if his or her entire understanding of relationships is built on a flawed foundation.

This chain of consequences is what makes this bill so important, and it’s also what leads us to a broader aspect of the issue: gender equality. I would like to take a moment to address this aspect, because it also deserves our attention.

The Canadian Centre for Child Protection reminded us that this content increasingly depicts relationships of domination and scenes of violence against women. It normalizes degrading female submission and depicts behaviours that would constitute assault in real life. Far from portraying healthy sexuality based on mutual desire and equality between partners, this content instead shows young people a highly distorted model of human relationships. When a young person views these portrayals for years without any educational counterbalance, it shapes their perception of women and a woman’s place in a relationship. It also shapes how they perceive consent in their own intimate and social relationships.

The report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Health indicated that measures to promote sexual health should also address issues related to gender equality, gender-based violence and sexual consent. Bill S-209 directly supports that approach.

In light of this reality, Bill S-209 offers a thoughtful and balanced response. It is based on the simple principle that commercial online pornography distribution platforms have a responsibility toward young people. The bill makes it an offence for organizations — whose primary purpose is to offer this type of material for commercial purposes — to make it accessible to persons under the age of 18. By taking this approach, the bill does not criminalize young people and does not place an unrealistic burden on parents in today’s digital environment. Rather, it recognizes that protecting children is a shared responsibility and that those who profit from this ecosystem must shoulder their share of that responsibility.

The bill has also been carefully designed to protect children without compromising legitimate access to information. Material with a legitimate purpose related to science, medicine, education or the arts is expressly excluded. The very definition of what is covered reflects this intent by significantly reducing the risk of overreach.

The enforcement mechanism reflects this same philosophy. It is progressive and proportionate, designed to give platforms time and opportunity to comply before any enforcement measures are taken. In particular, the inclusion of age estimation as a barrier offers significant technological flexibility, allowing platforms to adapt their practices as technologies evolve. Bill S-209 thus demonstrates that it is possible to protect our children while respecting technological realities and fundamental rights.

This brings me to the question of proportionality in relation to the Charter and our international obligations.

This concern for balance naturally leads us to examine the issue of fundamental rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Bill S-209 engages Charter section 2(b) on freedom of expression and section 8 on protection against unreasonable searches. The bill seeks not to ban legal content for adults, but to restrict minors’ access to such content. This distinction is crucial. The amendments we adopted increase the measure’s proportionality without imposing new restrictions on freedom of expression or on access to legal content.

As Professor Trudel noted, public health imperatives are ample justification for the guardrails the bill proposes to put in place.

This requirement of proportionality is actually part of a broader framework, specifically our international commitments. Canada ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child more than 35 years ago. Article 19 of this convention requires states parties to take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect children from all forms of violence, including sexual violence. UN General Comment No. 25 explicitly calls on states to implement robust age verification measures, while UN General Comment No. 20 calls for protections against all forms of digital violence.

I would like to remind everyone that the 2007 Senate report entitled Children: The Silenced Citizens urged Canada to take action. It is now 2026. Bill S-209 is a direct response to these obligations, which the National Council of Women of Canada has identified as a duty of care.

Honourable senators, Bill S-209 is a necessary, proportionate and long overdue measure. It is necessary because the scientific evidence is clear, and every day of inaction prolongs the consequences for an entire generation. It is proportionate because it targets commercial distributors, protects privacy, respects the Charter and is consistent with our international commitments. It is long overdue because Canadians are calling for it and our children deserve it.

Over the course of this study, we learned that early exposure to pornography creates distorted relationship models, misrepresents the concept of consent, threatens gender equality and causes lasting trauma. The science has spoken. The witnesses’ testimony has spoken. It is time for us to speak too, through our vote.

By passing this bill, we’ll be sending a clear signal that Canada is serious about protecting its children in the digital world. Canada recognizes that pornography platforms have a responsibility to society and Canada believes that gender equality starts in childhood.

I urge you to vote in favour of Bill S-209. This is not only for the children who are currently navigating the world without protection but also for the Canada we want to leave behind for the next generation. The time to act is now. Let’s act together. Thank you. Meegwetch.

Honourable senators, I am also rising today to speak to Bill S-209, the Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Act.

First and foremost, I would like to recognize Senator Miville-Dechêne’s perseverance and, since she spoke about determination, I would like to recognize that as well.

There can be no doubt as to the merits of this bill. Who would object to the laudable goal of protecting minors?

However, Bill S-209 remains complex and restrictive. That is why the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs studied it in depth.

I will not get into the details of every amendment adopted in committee since the bill’s sponsor did so earlier.

However, I would like to explain the amendments that I myself proposed and talk about how I think they improve Bill S-209.

The first has to do with the date on which the law comes into force, which will now be fixed by order at a time chosen by the government. That may seem trivial, but it is actually very important because the government will now be able to ensure that users’ privacy is respected and limit the risk of a breach to a level it deems acceptable for the public interest. The government can thus ensure that the regulations are rigorous and carefully prepared without the pressure of a deadline.

It is essential to reassure the public about the confidentiality, privacy and criminal harassment risks that could result from the implementation of Bill S-209. The amended bill provides that, before the bill comes into force, the government must be satisfied and must have access to reliable technology, to the extent possible, in order to fully meet the more stringent criteria set out in the bill.

To implement Bill S-209 effectively, the government needs to be assured that the pornography industry will comply with these measures, which it may consider restrictive. However, many witnesses testified that if Bill S-209 is passed and implemented, a lot of smaller organizations would simply disregard it. We have to avoid creating a two-tiered system where law-abiding businesses are governed by these measures, but violators are under no obligation to do the same.

To prevent this from happening, the committee added a system of monetary penalties to the bill in order to impose a financial burden on offending companies. This means that, in addition to the possibility of applying to the Federal Court for an order, a strict system of penalties will take direct aim at the porn industry’s wallet. I think that would serve as a strong deterrent and ensure that the act is effectively enforced.

In a note appended to their report, the committee members also called on the government to consider the responsibility of the pornography industry to fund measures to protect minors.

The evidence is clear: Pornography consumption has harmful and dangerous effects on the psychological and physical health of minors. As a provider of this service, the pornography industry should help cover the cost of the measures the government will implement to protect minors.

Pornography is a highly profitable industry, and I believe it is entirely reasonable that a portion of its revenue be used to protect the public interest, which is threatened by its commercial activities.

It is becoming increasingly clear that traditional approaches are not effective in reducing the harm caused by these industries. It is therefore imperative and necessary for the government to explore alternative solutions to shift the financial burden onto the providers of these services and, ultimately, onto their customers rather than Canadian taxpayers.

I would like to bring that point to the government’s attention.

That said, in my opinion, there are still some aspects of Bill S-209 that may require improvement and deserve additional scrutiny.

The first area is privacy protection. We must not forget that pornography is a legal product that can be consumed by adults. If we implement this bill into law, the testimony has proven that leaks and cyberattacks will happen. It’s not a matter of “if,” but rather a matter of “when.”

As a result, the private and sensitive data of lawful users could become compromised. While we have a duty to protect minors, we also have one to protect the privacy of users who will be required by law to present personal information.

There’s also the remaining issue of the ability to circumvent this bill by the use of virtual private networks, better known as VPNs. We know this to be true because every country that has implemented such legislation has seen a drastic spike in the download of VPNs. Recent examples in the U.K. and Australia confirm what we have heard in testimony from credible sources, like the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.

There is also a more insidious risk — the one of giving credibility to a profoundly problematic industry. We must not give the false impression that as a consequence of this bill receiving Royal Assent, this industry has become safe, clean and respectable. These concerns have been a central part of the consideration by members of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.

I believe we found the adequate balance between these more problematic issues and our duty to protect minors from the proven and long-lasting negative effects that pornography has on them.

Importantly, I would also note that in addressing minors’ consumption of pornography, it remains essential to recognize that parental responsibility is still fundamental. This bill in no way substitutes for it.

It is crucial to ensure that the goals of Bill S-209 are achieved if this bill comes into force. Joining other like-minded countries in adopting age verification legislation for minors is a step in the right direction and an investment in our future. This is why I support this bill.