Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Act

Summary#

Bill S-209 would create a standalone law called the Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Act; it would not amend another Act. Its stated goal is to protect young people’s health and safety by restricting their online access to pornographic material. These are proposed provisions, not provisions in force.

• An organization that, for commercial purposes, makes defined pornographic material available online to someone under 18 could face a summary-conviction fine of up to $250,000 for a first offence and $500,000 for later offences.
• An organization could use a defence based on age verification or estimation only if it used a method set by regulation. The method would have to meet privacy and other safeguards in the bill.
• The Governor in Council could designate a federal government agency, division or branch as the enforcement authority. It could issue a notice requiring an organization to take specified steps within 20 days.
• If the organization does not comply with the notice, the authority could apply to Federal Court. If the Court finds the bill’s conditions are met, it must order the named internet service providers to prevent young people in Canada from accessing the material.
• The bill allows regulations to create administrative monetary penalties for failing to comply with a notice. Those penalties are not set in the bill.
• The Minister must report annually to Parliament on notices, court applications and their outcomes.

What it means for you#

• Organizations offering online material for commercial purposes: They could face fines if they make material covered by the bill available to someone under 18. An organization would not be convicted if the material serves a legitimate purpose related to science, medicine, education or the arts, or if it complies with a notice within the required time.
• Organizations using age checks: To rely on the age-verification or estimation defence, they would have to use a method prescribed by regulation. The bill requires such methods to protect privacy and personal information, among other safeguards.
• Internet service providers: If named in a court case and the Court makes an order, providers would have to prevent young people in Canada from accessing the material. The bill defines these providers to include internet access, content hosting and email providers.
• Young people and the general public: The bill would not create an individual right to a service or directly ban adults from accessing material. The practical effect of a court order on adult access is not specified.
• Organizations providing incidental internet services: Search, transmission, download, storage or access services are not treated as making material available for commercial purposes merely because they are incidentally used for content alleged to be pornographic.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

• The bill would allow fines of up to $250,000 for a first offence and $500,000 for later offences. These are maximum fines after summary conviction, not automatic charges.
• Regulations could establish administrative monetary penalties for failing to comply with a notice, but the bill sets no amounts.
• The bill would require a designated government authority to issue notices and handle possible court applications, but gives no staffing or cost estimate.
• Organizations may face costs for age-verification or estimation methods. The bill does not estimate those costs.

What is unclear#

• The bill defines pornographic material as certain visual depictions of explicit sexual activity intended to cause sexual excitement, but it does not explain how that intention would be assessed in particular cases.
• Regulations would determine when free material counts as being made available for commercial purposes. Those rules are not included.
• The prescribed age-check methods, the steps an enforcement notice could require, and any administrative penalty amounts are not yet specified.
• The bill does not set out a process for how the authority assesses representations from an organization beyond requiring that they be considered when deciding an administrative penalty.
• The bill does not explain how internet providers would prevent access by young people without affecting adults, or how the proposed rules would interact with other programs or laws.
• The commencement section says the Act starts on a day fixed by order of the Governor in Council; its heading says “One year after royal assent.” The supplied text does not explain this difference.

Case for#

• The bill appears intended to address online access to material it describes as harmful to young people, particularly material depicting demeaning content or sexual violence.
• Requiring age checks for a defence could encourage organizations offering such material commercially to limit access by minors.
• The bill sets privacy conditions for any prescribed age-check method, including limiting data collection and requiring destruction of personal information after the check.
• Notices give an organization 20 days to take specified steps before the enforcement authority can apply for a court order.

Case against#

• The bill leaves key details to future regulations, including what age-check methods qualify and when free material is treated as commercial.
• Age-check methods could impose costs on organizations and require handling personal information, even with the bill’s privacy safeguards.
• The Court order power could require providers—including hosting or email providers—to block access. The bill does not explain how to limit effects on adults or on other material.
• The bill allows large fines and possible additional administrative penalties, but does not set the latter’s amounts or fully describe the process for determining liability.