Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Act
An Act to restrict young personsā online access to pornographic material
Summary
- Creates a new offence for organizations that make pornographic material available online to individuals under 18 for commercial purposes, with fines up to $250,000 for a first offence and $500,000 thereafter.
- Provides a defence if prescribed ageāverification or ageāestimation methods are implemented; includes exceptions for legitimate science, medicine, education, or arts purposes and clarifies that incidental service providers (e.g., search, hosting) are not captured.
- Establishes an enforcement authority that can issue nonācompliance notices and apply to the Federal Court for orders requiring ISPs to block access to the material for young persons if organizations fail to act.
- Requires annual reporting to Parliament and enables regulations prescribing privacyāprotecting ageāverification methods; the Act comes into force one year after Royal Assent.
Builder Assessment
While the bill addresses a legitimate public health/safety objective, it adds regulatory burdens and enforcement mechanisms that conflict with economic freedom and government efficiency, and it does not materially advance growth, competitiveness, or exports. Overall, its economic alignment with Build Canadaās tenets is weak and mixed at best.
- Reasons for āNoā:
- Introduces new compliance mandates, penalties, and potential ISP blocking orders (conflicts with Tenet 2).
- Expands bureaucracy and court involvement without clear efficiency safeguards (conflicts with Tenet 6).
- Limited or indirect effects on productivity, investment, exports, or largeāscale prosperity (neutral on Tenets 1, 3, 4, 5, 8).
- How to better align with the tenets:
- Create a regulatory sandbox and performanceābased standards for privacyāpreserving age verification to catalyze Canadian innovation (supports Tenet 5).
- Offer procurement, R&D credits, or vouchers for SMEs to adopt certified ageāverification tools, with cost caps and safe harbours (supports Tenets 3, 5, 7).
- Replace broad ISP blocking with targeted, timeālimited orders and clear dueāprocess safeguards to reduce business risk (supports Tenets 2, 6).
- Add a sunset clause, independent costābenefit reviews, and outcome metrics on youth harm reduction and compliance burden (supports Tenet 6).
- Encourage development of an open, privacyāpreserving Canadian proofāofāage standard exportable to other markets (supports Tenets 1, 4, 5).
Principles Analysis
ā
Canada should aim to be the world's most prosperous country.
Primarily a public health/safety bill with indirect economic effects; any longārun productivity gains from reduced youth harms are speculative.
ā
Promote economic freedom, ambition, and breaking from bureaucratic inertia (reduce red tape).
Imposes mandatory compliance, fines, and potential ISP blocking orders, adding regulatory burden and constraints on online businesses.
ā
Drive national productivity and global competitiveness, including removing interprovincial trade barriers and improving labour mobility (one country, one market).
Could marginally support human capital over time, but nearāterm compliance and enforcement costs for digital firms may offset benefits; net effect is unclear.
ā
Grow exports of Canadian products and resources, and move up the value chain by processing resources domestically rather than exporting them raw.
No direct impact on export capacity or trade; effects on digital services exports are uncertain.
ā
Encourage investment, innovation, and resource development.
May spur innovation in privacyāpreserving age verification, but also raises regulatory risk and costs for platforms; overall impact is ambiguous.
ā
Deliver better public services at lower cost (government efficiency).
Creates a new enforcement authority, court processes, and reporting obligations without clear costācontainment or efficiency mechanisms.
ā
Reform taxes to incentivize work, risk-taking, and innovation.
No tax policy elements.
ā
Focus on large-scale prosperity, not incrementalism.
Targets a specific social harm rather than largeāscale economic prosperity; macroeconomic impact is limited.
Did we get the builder vote wrong?
Email [email protected]
PartySenate
StatusAt second reading in the Senate
Last updatedMay 28, 2025
TopicsSocial Issues, Legal and Regulatory
Parliament45