Bill S-210

{{Infobox legislation

| short_title = Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Act

| legislature = Parliament of Canada

| long_title = An Act to restrict young persons’ online access to sexually explicit material

| amends =

| enacted_by = Senate of Canada

| date_passed = June 23, 2021

| considered_by2 = House of Commons of Canada

| date_passed2 = Not Passed

| royal_assent =

| date_commenced =

| bill = Bill S-203

| introduced_by = Julie Miville-Dechêne

| 1st_reading = September 30, 2020{{cite Hansard |jurisdiction=Canada |title=PROTECTING YOUNG PERSONS FROM EXPOSURE TO PORNOGRAPHY BILL |url=https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/chamber/432/debates/pdf/002db_2020-09-30-e.pdf |house=Senate of Canada |date=November 30, 2020 |page=16 }}

| 2nd_reading = November 3, 2020{{cite Hansard |jurisdiction=Canada |title=PROTECTING YOUNG PERSONS FROM EXPOSURE TO PORNOGRAPHY BILL |url=https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/chamber/432/debates/pdf/008db_2020-11-03-e.pdf |house=Senate of Canada |date=November 3, 2020 |page=236 }}

| 2nd_reading_for = N/A {{efn|name=VoiceVote|Was carried by voice vote.}}

| 2nd_reading_against = N/A {{efn|name=VoiceVote}}

| committee_responsible = Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs

| committee_post2nd = April 21, 2021 - June 15, 2021{{cite web |url=https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/chamber/432/debates/pdf/049db_2021-06-15-e.pdf |title=Studies & Bills |publisher=Canadian Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs |date=June 15, 2021 |website=sencanada.ca}}

| 3rd_reading = June 21, 2021{{cite Hansard |jurisdiction=Canada |title=PROTECTING YOUNG PERSONS FROM EXPOSURE TO PORNOGRAPHY BILL |url=https://sencanada.ca/content/sen/chamber/432/debates/pdf/053db_2021-06-22-e.pdf |house=Senate of Canada |date=June 21, 2021 |page=1989}}

| 3rd_reading_for = N/A {{efn|name=VoiceVote}}

| 3rd_reading_against = N/A {{efn|name=VoiceVote}}

| committee_report = [https://sencanada.ca/en/committees/LCJC/Report/95053/43-2]

| bill2 = Bill S-203

| introduced_by2 =

| 1st_reading2 =

| 2nd_reading2 =

| 2nd_reading2_for =

| 2nd_reading2_against =

| committee_responsible2 =

| committee_post2nd2 =

| 3rd_reading2 =

| 3rd_reading2_for =

| 3rd_reading2_against =

| committee_report2 =

| status = Not Passed

}}

The private member's bill{{Cite web |date=2024-05-23 |title=NDP, Liberals claim Conservative filibustering derailed ministers' testimony on auto theft |url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ministers-auto-theft-committee-s-210-1.7212858 |access-date=2024-05-26 |website=CBC News}} was introduced in the Senate by Julie Miville-Dechêne on November 24, 2021. It was studied by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs committee of the Senate, which amended the bill to reinforce privacy protections, on the recommendation of witness Keith Jansa, of the Digital Governance Council.{{cite web |title=THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS -- EVIDENCE |url=https://sencanada.ca/en/Content/Sen/Committee/441/LCJC/05EV-55401-E |access-date=29 May 2024}} The bill passed unopposed in the Senate on April 18, 2023.{{Cite web |last=Martel |first=Marie-Ève |title=Will Bill S-210 prevent minors from accessing pornography? |url=https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/december-2023/will-bill-s-210-prevent-minors-from-accessing-pornography/ |access-date=2024-05-27 |website=Policy Options |language=en}}{{Cite web |last=Geist |first=Michael |author-link=Michael Geist |date=2023-12-14 |title=The Most Dangerous Canadian Internet Bill You've Never Heard Of Is a Step Closer to Becoming Law |url=https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2023/12/the-most-dangerous-canadian-internet-bill-youve-never-heard-of-is-a-step-closer-to-becoming-law/ |access-date=2024-05-27 |language=en-US}} It was sent to the House of Commons with sponsorship from Conservative Party MP Karen Vecchio. It passed second reading on December 13, 2023, and was referred to the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security for study.

Hearings were scheduled for May 2024. Two of the scheduled dates were fillibustered by Conservative MP Garnett Genuis, who demanded that the government release a report on the transfer of serial killer Paul Bernardo to a medium-security prison{{cite web |date=July 20, 2023 |title=Paul Bernardo to stay in medium-security prison as correctional service defends transfer |url=https://www.cp24.com/news/paul-bernardo-to-stay-in-medium-security-prison-as-correctional-service-defends-transfer-1.6487606 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230721003427/https://www.cp24.com/news/paul-bernardo-to-stay-in-medium-security-prison-as-correctional-service-defends-transfer-1.6487606 |archive-date=July 21, 2023 |access-date=July 21, 2023 |website=CP24}} before he would allow hearings to commence. Liberal and NDP MPs called for more time to be allocated for review so that the bill does not return to the House without witness testimony.{{Cite web |last=Geist |first=Michael |date=2024-05-16 |title=Bill S-210 Study Without Witnesses?: Why a Conservative Filibuster May Lead to New Internet Age Verification Requirements and Website Blocking Legislation |url=https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2024/05/s210filibuster/ |access-date=2024-05-27 |language=en-US}}{{Cite web |last=Geist |first=Michael |date=2024-05-24 |title=Filibuster of Bill S-210 Confirmed: Conservative MPs Put Privacy and Free Speech Online At Risk Over Release of Report - Michael Geist |url=https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2024/05/filibuster-of-bill-s-210-confirmed-conservative-mps-put-privacy-and-free-speech-online-at-risk-over-release-of-report/ |access-date=2024-05-27 |language=en-US}} The hearings would ultimately begin on May 27.{{Cite web |last=Taylor |first=Stephanie |date=2024-05-28 |title=Could a Senate bill cause age verification laws to apply to Netflix? Experts say yes |url=https://www.cp24.com/news/could-a-senate-bill-cause-age-verification-laws-to-apply-to-netflix-experts-say-yes-1.6903985 |access-date=2024-05-28 |publisher=Canadian Press |language=en |via=CP24}}

The bill would make it a criminal offence for an organization to make "sexually explicit material" (as defined by section 171.1(5) of the Criminal Code) available on the Internet to users under the age of 18 for commercial purposes. There are three possible defences for organizations accused of non-compliance with the law, including that:{{Cite web |title=Public Bill (Senate) S-210 (44-1) - Third Reading - Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Act - Parliament of Canada |url=https://www.parl.ca/documentviewer/en/44-1/bill/S-210/third-reading |access-date=2024-05-27 |website=www.parl.ca |language=en}}

• The organization had a belief that the user was 18 or older as verified by a reliable age verification system.
• The material has "legitimate purpose related to science, medicine, education or the arts".
• The organization has received notice of non-compliance and implemented measures to prevent Internet users under 18 from accessing sexually explicit material.

The Governor in Council would be responsible for setting regulations relating to the bill's provisions, including determining the types of age verification systems that must be used, and appointing a minister or agency as the authority responsible for enforcing the law. When prescribing a reliable age verification system under the law, the Governor in Council must take into account whether the method complies with best practices for age verification, and protects users' privacy and personally identifiable information (PII), including whether PII is collected solely for age verification purposes, and data is destroyed once verification is completed.

Fines are set at up to $250,000 for the first offence, and up to $500,000 for a subsequent offence. If an organization does not employ compliance measures within 20 days of receiving notice of the offence, the appointed authority would have the power to request that the Federal Court order internet service providers to block all or part of the offending website, even if it does not consist solely of sexually explicit material.

The bill has primarily been opposed by the adult entertainment industry (particularly Montreal-based Aylo, the largest operator of internet pornography websites), and online privacy and internet freedom advocates. University of Ottawa professor Michael Geist has been critical of the bill's expansive scope and inadequate prescription of specific, known age-verification technology, explaining that "it envisions government-enforced global website liability for failure to block underage access, backed by website blocking and mandated age verification systems that are likely to include face recognition technologies. The government establishes this regulatory framework and is likely to task the CRTC with providing the necessary administration. While there are surely good intentions with the bill, the risks and potential harms it poses are significant." He also argued that the bill can apply to any site that hosts "sexually explicit" content besides porn websites, including search engines and social networks.{{Cite web |last=Geist |first=Michael |date=2022-02-10 |title=Age Verification Requirements for Twitter or Website Blocking for Reddit?: My Appearance on Bill S-210 at the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs - Michael Geist |url=https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2022/02/age-verification-requirements-for-twitter-or-website-blocking-for-reddit-my-appearance-on-bill-s-210-at-the-senate-standing-committee-on-legal-and-constitutional-affairs/ |access-date=2024-05-27 |language=en-US}} During hearings, deputy minister of heritage Owen Ripley reiterated the government's position that the bill would also apply to video platforms such as Netflix.

During Senate hearings, University of Montreal professor Pierre Trudel defended the bill, testifying that it would "[level] the legal playing field, so to speak, by ensuring that what is prohibited offline is also prohibited online". On allegations that the definition of "sexually explicit material" was too broad, he noted that it was already understood in case law (such as R. v. Sharpe) that the Criminal Code definition applied primarily to depictions of "intimate sexual activity represented in a graphic and unambiguous fashion" intended to cause sexual stimulation, and not "casual nudity or intimacy".{{cite web |title=THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS -- EVIDENCE |url=https://sencanada.ca/en/Content/Sen/Committee/441/LCJC/09EV-55460-E |access-date=29 May 2024}} Geist, however, noted that the definitions used in the Criminal Code were broad out of their original context, as they were intended to be cited "within the context of other sexual related crimes", and that "contrary to Genuis’ claim, you cannot run afoul of the Criminal Code merely for putting Game of Thrones on in your home for a 16 year old".{{Cite web |last=Geist |first=Michael |date=2024-05-29 |title=Curb Your Enthusiasm: Why Bill S-210 Could Mandate CRTC-Backed Age Verification For Streaming Services Like Netflix, Crave and CBC Gem - Michael Geist |url=https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2024/05/curb-your-enthusiasm/ |access-date=2024-05-30 |language=en-US}}

Writing for the Institute for Research on Public Policy, Marie-Ève Martel questioned whether the bill could be enforced, as it does not prescribe any specific requirements for age verification technologies, cited concerns over the privacy and effectiveness of such systems, and that legal challenges over similar bills in the U.S. "foreshadow a legal challenge to the new law on Canadian soil, which could delay or even compromise its implementation." In its Senate brief and testimony, the Canadian Bar Association was "generally supportive of Bill S-210 and its purpose" but raised questions about the age limit and potentially overbroad defence of legitimate purpose.. The CBA was also critical of the bill's lack of specificity on how personal data will be protected, especially if the age verification solutions were to be provided by the government.{{Cite web |date=1 March 2022 |title=CBA expresses concern over proposed law restricting underage access to sexually explicit materials |url=https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/practice-areas/criminal/cba-expresses-concern-over-proposed-law-restricting-underage-access-to-sexually-explicit-materials/364448 |website=Canadian Lawyer Magazine |last=Eñano |first=Katrina |language=en}}

Liberals largely voted against the bill in the House of Commons, with only 15 voting in favour during its first reading, and the majority of its support coming from the official opposition Conservative Party, the New Democratic Party, the Bloc Québécois, and the Green Party.{{Cite news |date=16 December 2023 |title=Why a proposed bill aiming to prevent kids from accessing porn sites is raising privacy concerns |url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/porn-site-age-verification-proposed-bill-1.7060841 |work=CBC News |language=en-CA|quote=The proposed legislation passed the Senate in spring and, this past week, second reading in the House of Commons with support from the Conservatives, NDP and Bloc.}}{{Cite news |date=26 February 2024 |title=Government choosing how porn sites should verify age would be a disaster |url=https://nationalpost.com/opinion/liberals-choosing-how-porn-sites-should-verify-age-would-be-a-disaster |work=National Post |first=Jamie |last=Sarkonak |language=en-CA|quote=Until now, perhaps out of carelessness or naiveté, the Tories — along with the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Green Party — are supporting a bill that would give federal cabinet the power to mandate the use of its preferred age-verification technology for use on the Canadian internet.}} Parliamentary Secretary Kevin Lamoureux stated that "the biggest issue we need to look at is why the bill is fairly narrow in its application with respect to harms to children". The Liberals had been proposing another online safety bill—the Online Harms Act—which would establish a digital safety commission, and place an obligation on large social networks to act on hate speech, content that incites violence or terrorism, child sexual abuse material, and revenge porn.{{Cite news |date=2023-12-14 |title=Senate bill would require age verification for Canadians accessing porn sites |url=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-senate-bill-would-require-age-verification-for-canadians-accessing/ |access-date=2024-05-27 |work=The Globe and Mail |language=en-CA}}{{Cite web |date=2024-02-27 |title=Online harms act won't ban 'awful but lawful' content online, says justice minister |url=https://www.cbc.ca/radio/thecurrent/online-harms-act-arif-virani-1.7127037 |access-date=2024-05-27 |website=CBC Radio}} The office of the Minister of Heritage described the bill as "fundamentally flawed", stating that "experts have loudly pointed to the serious issues in this proposal around issues of privacy, security, and technology". Privacy Commissioner Philippe Dufresne suggested that the scope of the bill needed to be narrowed to overcome digital privacy concerns, and freedom of expression concerns relating to its wide definition of "sexually explicit material", which could also make it apply to services that do not otherwise focus on sexually explicit content.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau criticized opposition leader Pierre Poilievre for prioritizing Bill S-210 over the Online Harms Act, stating that "instead of stepping up to stand for protecting our kids through responsible, serious legislation, he's proposing that adults should instead give their ID and personal information to sketchy websites, or create a digital ID for adults to be able to browse the web the way they want to."{{Cite web |date=2024-02-22 |title=Trudeau jabs Poilievre over bill that could usher in digital ID for porn browsing |url=https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-jabs-poilievre-over-bill-that-could-usher-in-digital-id-for-porn-browsing-1.6779572 |access-date=2024-05-27 |website=CTVNews |language=en}} Of Poilievre's support of the bill, Geist felt that it was "decidedly off-brand" given the Conservative Party's past support for Internet freedom.{{Cite web |last=Geist |first=Michael |date=2024-02-22 |title=Conservatives Double Down on Support for Mandated Internet Age Verification and Website Blocking: Why Can't Canada Get Common Sense Digital Policy? - Michael Geist |work=Michael Geist |url=https://www.michaelgeist.ca/2024/02/conservatives-double-down-on-support-for-mandated-internet-age-verification-and-website-blocking-why-cant-canada-get-common-sense-digital-policy/ |access-date=2024-05-27 |language=en-US}} Poilievre later said in an interview with CTV News that he was "against digital IDs" and "against people having to supply a driver's license to a questionable website".{{Cite web |date=23 February 2024 |title=Extended: Pierre Poilievre interview |last=Masotti |first=Stefanie |url=https://windsor.ctvnews.ca/video/c2872886-extended--pierre-poilievre-interview |website=CTVNews |language=en}}

• Online Harms Act
• Online Streaming Act
• Online News Act

{{Reflist}}

{{notelist}}

Category:2024 in Canadian law

Category:44th Canadian Parliament

Category:Canadian federal legislation

Category:Internet censorship

Category:Internet in Canada

Category:Proposed laws of Canada