Bill S-210 has an arresting title compared to the majority of those passing through the various levels of government in order to become law: “Protecting Young Persons from Exposure to Pornography Act.”

“The title of the legislation sends a fairly powerful message. There is absolutely no doubt about that,” said Kevin Lamoureux, parliamentary secretary to the leader of the government, in the House of Commons during a reading of the bill.

Bill S-210 is a federal, private member’s bill. As of June 2024, the bill has passed second reading and is in the report stage. It is meant to protect children and teenagers from exposure to age-inappropriate content. On paper, that seems like a good idea that most people would support. Protecting children is important, and much of the discussion during the House of Commons readings focused mainly on that—not the issues with privacy the bill poses. The details surrounding how age verification would work are nebulous, and the ones that are known raise privacy concerns.

During the readings, Liberal and NDP members of parliament mentioned some of those concerns alongside the ones about children. Conservative and Bloc Québécois representatives mainly focused on controlling who is able to watch pornography.

“Canadians want their children to be protected, but they are also wary about invasions of their privacy. Canadians have very little trust in the ability of the web giants to manage their information and private data,” said Anju Dhillon, a Liberal MP who represents Dorval-Lachine-LaSalle, in November 2023 when the bill was being discussed in its second reading, a rare stage to reach for a private member’s bill. People are also fearful, she said, of deliberate violations of privacy and data security breaches.

The Privacy & Access Council of Canada has pointed out that the sweeping provisions in the bill could endanger all Canadians’ privacy, not just underaged people. Currently, age verification could entail forcing people to upload pictures of their faces and government-issued IDs to watch porn online. Some of that data could be stored long term, creating easily found trails online. The bill does not set out clear terms to prevent this from happening.

Age verification technology has been criticized as immature and not adequately developed at a technological level. A recent report from France’s National Commission for Information Technology and Civil Liberties found that six of the leading age verification solutions did not respect users’ rights.

This is a particular stress on members of the 2SLBGTQIA+ community, who could face exposure and/or blackmail for their browsing history. Not everyone in the community is out, and the ability for others to access intimate data puts already marginalized people at further risk. For 2SLBGTQIA+ Canadians who live in rural areas, this can be especially scary as the online world is sometimes their only way to connect with queer culture.

There is not a lot of data specific to the porn-viewing habits of Canadian youth, with researchers denoting a need for more studies. A 2023 report from Common Sense Media found that around 73 percent of U.S. teens aged 13-17 had watched porn online. The same study found differences in the porn consumption of 2SLBGTQIA+ youth compared to their hetero peers—the former group was more likely to seek out porn intentionally, in an effort to explore and affirm their sexuality. Yet this bill and its sweeping provisions seems based on the idea that all youth engage in the same habits online (watching violent pornography where a woman is subjugated by a man; the concern being its influence) when that is simply not accurate.

Another critique of the bill has been that a VPN, which many youth know how to use, could be a way to get around age verification. The bill is meant to protect those under 18. They are arguably also the most internet and tech-savvy generation to exist and the bill is being created by people who have not grown up online in the same way, and may not be able to anticipate how young people will subvert provisions.

Senator Julie Miville-Dechêne is the chief architect and lead defender of the bill. A former Radio-Canada broadcaster who was appointed to the Senate in 2018, she was a guest on the “Law Bytes” podcast to debate it. In a January 2024 episode, she provided her rationale and defence against the criticism and concerns it has sparked. She explained to host Michael Geist that she has worked carefully on drafting the legislation and adding amendments for three years.

Miville-Dechêne responded to the issues Geist raised around privacy by saying that the bill had not specifically mandated exactly what age verification system would be used at this point, noting that technology evolves constantly. “No method is absolutely zero risk…we can erase the data. We can make sure that it is a mechanism that doesn’t go too far. But frankly, this is not in the bill. This is to be discussed afterwards. So how can you say the bill is dangerous?” Mivelle-Dechêne said.

“In some ways, it seems to me, that makes it even more dangerous,” Geist retorted.

A bill meant to protect vulnerable members of our society should not further marginalize others. If there are not sweeping reforms to this bill, particularly the technological aspects, it could easily become one of the biggest national threats to privacy in recent history.

All that being said, I’m now going to do that thing where I completely discount everything I wrote in the opening paragraph. That’s 30 seconds of your life you will never get back, and for that I sincerely, sincerely apologize.

Brian Pallister. Courtesy CBC.

This is leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Manitoba, Brian Pallister. You might remember him from the time in 2005 when he copped to “what’s known as a woman’s answer […] It’s a sort of fickle kind of thing.” When questioned about his dithering on future plans. He later apologized.

You may also remember the time Ol’ Brian “your pal” (imagined self-imposed nickname) Pallister, hilariously chided then CEO of the Royal Canadian Mint, Dave Dingwall, in the House of Commons with a delightfully clever, and by clever I mean incredibly lame, parody rendition of Pink Floyd’s “Another Brick in the Wall (Part 2).” He was responsible for these unforgettable lyrics:

“You don’t need no information,

we’re in charge of thought control,

fine wines with caviar in the backroom.”

And then his fellow Tories chimed in with:

“Hey Tories, leave those Grits alone

All in all, it’s just another ding in the wall”

That was also in 2005, a banner year for Pallister, and song parody enthusiasts the world over. Anyways, all of that aside Pallister again said something incredibly stupid and this time on camera! In the video below he wishes “infidel atheists” a happy holidays, and then paternalistically adds, “I don’t know what you celebrate during the holiday season, I myself celebrate the birth of Christ…If you wish to celebrate nothing and get together with friends that’s good too.”

The contents of what he is saying is not particularly offensive to me. As an atheist, I wasn’t really looking for Brian Pallister’s go-ahead to celebrate the holidays. What is offensive to me is the condescending “pat on the head” he is giving to a group of people who don’t believe what he believes. Also particularly galling, is the internal struggle you’re witnessing of a man who seems to want to rage against the increasingly secular nature of Christmas (As in: We can’t even say Merry Christmas anymore! What is the world coming to!?!?!), but knows he can’t because he’s a politician.

I recognize that this is just an ignorant person not really knowing how to mask their ignorance. He’s trying his darndest to get his stupid thoughts from his brain, where it makes perfect sense, to the rest of us without coming across as stupid. The problem is he doesn’t have enough skill or cunning to pull it off. And yes Brian, I too know that infidel means non-believer, so while you weren’t crossing any strict definition lines, you purposely used a charged word to intensify your argument in favour of good, clean, Christian celebration of the holidays. Really, though, it would be as awful as me calling someone a faggot homosexual and then earnestly arguing that faggot technically means a bundle of sticks. But I know it’s a charged word and so did you, so no amount of saying “I respect your choice, all the best” is going to deflect from the molotov cocktail you lobbed two sentences earlier.

“I’ve ranted a lot about youth voter turnout and garnered some attention just because I lead a public life,” Mercer said  about the project. “There are so many people who keep our democracy moving in private and never get recognized. How and why someone gets involved shouldn’t be a state secret—it should be a state celebration.”

The goal of having a less cynical political population seems to be related to low voter turnouts and polls showing democratic satisfaction is at an all time low in Canada (55%).

Samara co-founder, Michael MacMillan, addressed the need for more recognition at the grass roots level, saying: “Everyday Political Citizens play a fundamental role in making politics work. And unlike volunteers in other sectors, these individuals too often go unrecognized, as politics is not seen to be a worthwhile place for good, honest people to invest time, these people are the antidote to today’s cynical views on politics.”

Now, my nature is to be skeptical of this kind of thing. Peppered throughout the Samara press releases are buzz words like “democratic vibrancy” and cliches like “building a better country”. It’s hokey. But I think it’s a worthwhile effort. The civic minded people of this country deserve better, and at least recognizing that they exist is optically important at this time.

The typical avenues used to engage people in the democratic process clearly aren’t working. Tools like attack ads and finger pointing are a huge turn-off for most, and simply saying “make sure you vote folks” is just another phrase we tune out at this point. I say we embrace the earnestness of this award, even if it may not feel right.

Oh, feel free to nominate me here. I voted in two of the last three elections!

I didn’t find anything Mr. Mulroney had to say particularly compelling—he comments on the charter of values in Quebec, Thomas Mulcair’s NDP leadership and Justin Trudeau’s stance on legalizing marijuana—but I did find myself not hating him as much as I once would. Putting aside the fact that watching two extremely rich white guys discuss how to run the country makes me gag reflexively, Mulroney is almost a refreshing Conservative, free from the mechanical robot speak of the Harper party liners. Then, I started wondering if we were entering an era of lionizing Brian Mulroney.

There’s a homogenous candour about him now that allows him to speak freely about policy, and the failure of the new conservatives in Canada, without becoming too transparent (he’s still a politician after all). Like Nixon post Watergate I think there is still a belief within Brian that the country needs him and a comeback would never be out of the question(Aw). Politicians, like boxers, can never truly rule out getting back in the ring so their guard has to always be at least half up. It would also be creepy, though, if he became too open—sort of like if your parents opened up to you about their sex lives. He’s in the box I want him in, the sweet spot where I can still dislike most of what he stands for while somehow daydreaming of days when Conservatives were more thoughtful, less ideologically stunted and perfectly cozy hanging out just right of centre.

(I suppose the worst thing you can say about Brian Mulroney now is that he gave Canadian media Ben Mulroney.)

Offspring aside, Mulroney, really, is a reminder that Conservatism used to be a far less pernicious force in Canadian politics. We can quibble over his tenure’s failures, and his tendency toward corruption (also one time this happened), but he never did as much to divide the country as Stephen Harper is doing now. He never touted the values of smaller government while consolidating all federal power within his office. Mulroney never politicized governmental scientific research and he didn’t turn our prison system into a draconian throwback to medieval Europe. We’re now seeing the dangers of a populist conservative movement in the United States, ideological ignorance combined with an unwillingness to compromise, and, as it turns out, the archetype of Conservative as lawyer-come-political operative is not the worst thing in the world.