S-252, the Stopping Internet Sexual Exploitation Act (the Protect Act), is a proposed law that would amend the Criminal Code. Its stated goal is to prevent commercial pornography from being made or distributed without age and consent checks, and to require some material to be removed when requested.
Commercial makers would commit an offence if they did not first check that everyone depicted was at least 18 and expressly agreed to have their image depicted.
Commercial distributors and advertisers would commit an offence if they did not first get written confirmation from the maker about each person’s age and consent, including that consent had not later been withdrawn in writing.
A website operator would commit an offence if they knowingly failed to remove material after the maker or a depicted person made a written request. This offence is not limited to commercial websites.
Commercial website operators would also have to remove certain older material if they knew, or reasonably should have known, that the required written confirmation had not been obtained, unless they had a reasonable excuse.
Courts could order seizure or deletion of material tied to these offences. After a conviction, a court could also restrict an offender’s internet use or order removal of the material.
The bill would add these offences to a Criminal Code rule that can treat certain offences committed abroad by Canadian citizens or permanent residents as committed in Canada.
People who make, distribute or advertise pornography commercially: The bill would set age and consent checks before making material, and written-confirmation checks before distributing or advertising it. “Pornographic material” is defined to cover visual depictions of explicit sexual activity, or sexual-purpose depictions of a person’s sexual organs or anal region.
People depicted in material: You, or the maker, could ask in writing for material to be removed from a website. The bill does not set a removal deadline.
Website operators: You could face an offence for knowingly ignoring a written removal request, even if your website is not commercial. Separate rules would apply to certain older material on commercial websites.
People convicted under the new offences: A court could order internet restrictions or removal of material. It could also order payment of reasonable, readily ascertainable costs a person incurred to remove the material.
Other members of the public: The bill does not create a new agency or general takedown service. Court-ordered seizure and deletion would depend on the Criminal Code procedures and conditions in the bill.
The bill sets maximum fines of $500,000 for an indictable offence, or $100,000 for an offence prosecuted by summary conviction. An indictable offence could also bring up to 10 years in prison.
It would let a court order an offender to repay qualifying removal costs, but does not require the court to do so.
The bill allows regulations about records and age-verification documents, but the supplied text gives no estimate of costs for record-keeping, enforcement, courts or regulations.
The bill appears intended to address the risk that intimate or exploitative material can spread online without the depicted person’s age or consent being checked.
Requiring checks before commercial material is made, distributed or advertised could place responsibility on makers and distributors rather than leaving prevention mainly to depicted people.
Written confirmation could give distributors a record of the maker’s assurances.
Allowing removal requests from depicted people and makers could provide a way to challenge material without waiting for a court order.
The preamble cites concerns about harm from online distribution and a committee recommendation for age and consent affirmation before upload.
The bill does not set a removal deadline or explain how a request must be submitted beyond requiring it to be in writing. That could leave uncertainty for both people seeking removal and website operators.
The rules depend on terms such as “commercial purposes” and “express consent” that the bill does not define.
The bill creates serious criminal penalties, but the supplied material does not estimate enforcement or compliance costs.
The rules differ by situation: some apply only to commercial activity, while the offence for knowingly failing to remove material after a written request does not. This may make the boundaries harder to understand.
The bill leaves important details to future regulations and does not itself set out the full verification, record-keeping or request process.