Information & Ethics Committee on May 9th, 2024

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you.

We're going to suspend for a few minutes while we set up the next panel.

Thank you again, Mr. Dufresne.

The meeting is suspended.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I will resume the meeting.

Unfortunately, some technical issues have occurred with the headsets, and the witnesses for the second hour are not available to the committee today. I will ask the clerk to see if we can re-invite them for another time.

It's unfortunate that we're in this circumstance. It's the nature of hybrid meetings, unfortunately.

Go ahead.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

On a point of order, Chair, can you confirm that the witnesses were all sent the correct headsets? It's just important to note that we approve budgets for these studies. We incur an expense to send the headsets. We incur an expense for the physical headsets. While it's regrettable, and we appreciate the acceptance of invitations by witnesses, there are standards that we have. This is a workplace. We have to respect the health and safety of everyone in this workplace. That includes using the proper equipment. I'm sure it's always been the case before that we've sent the headsets. Life happens. I appreciate that. The inconvenience is unfortunate.

I just want to confirm that the error wasn't on the part of this committee or the House.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'll defer to the clerk to answer that question, Mr. Barrett. My understanding is that the headsets were properly sent. There were some circumstances, which I'm not going to get into for the sake of the witnesses, where they weren't available to them.

Madam Clerk, do you want to talk about that?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Nancy Vohl]

Yes. Absolutely. Thank you for the question. It is a good question.

In answer to Mr. Barrett, the two witnesses who were supposed to appear on May 2 indeed were sent headsets for the May 2 appearance. The two of them are busy people and travelling the world. They were somewhere in Canada at the time, but they are now currently travelling the world. They were informed that in order to appear, they needed to have the proper headset.

Somewhere—with jet lag and going from one city to another and another—one of the witnesses specified that he had the headset but left it somewhere on the way.

As for Mr. Giguère, he was in the United States. A headset was sent over to him. We saw yesterday that the headset was still in the United States, in the facility, so we followed up. He got himself one of the approved headsets, which we can reimburse. The tests were all done. Nonetheless, as sometimes happens for some reason that we do not understand, it seems that the sound is not working.

One of the witnesses forget a headset somewhere, but it was provided, and they were informed.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Understood. Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Mr. Barrett.

It is unfortunate. Obviously, a lot of resources go into ensuring that these meetings function properly, but it's where we're at.

Ms. Khalid, go ahead.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Given that proper notice has been given, I move the following:

That, given the comments of the Leader of the Opposition last week in which he suggested he would use the notwithstanding clause if given the chance, and previous statements that the Conservative Party of Canada would require a digital ID to access content on the Internet, the committee report to the House that the committee:

a) Recognizes the importance of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to protect the rights of all Canadians, including the right to privacy; and

b) Opposes the federal Parliament’s use of the notwithstanding clause in all instances.

Chair, I'll check with you to see if everything is in order before I speak to the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I thought about this motion over the last couple of days, Ms. Khalid. I'm going to rule it inadmissible for several reasons, not the least of which is that there are a couple of references to the notwithstanding clause in the Canadian Charter of Rights, which I believe falls under the purview of the justice committee.

The second reason is what I deem to be a hypothetical assertion in relation to the Conservative Party leader's digital ID.

I rule the motion inadmissible, as it's outside the scope and mandate of the committee, Ms. Khalid.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Chair, I would like to challenge your ruling, because I have seen a lot more loosely worded motions move forward in this committee.

This is a significant issue with respect to privacy and with respect to the rights that are enumerated within our charter. I think our committee has an obligation to pursue this.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Ms. Khalid would like to challenge the ruling of the chair.

I'm going to the clerk for a vote on the question: Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?

Go ahead, Madam Clerk.

(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 7; yeas 3 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

The ruling is not sustained. The decision is nay.

The motion is moved.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

I'd like to speak to it.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Go ahead, Ms. Khalid, and then we're going to Mr. Kurek.

[Iqra Khalid, Liberal, Mississauga—Erin Mills, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I really do appreciate this opportunity. Over the past couple of weeks, I've been quite alarmed. I grew up in this country. I was not born here. I came here and got to realize the importance of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms because my front door neighbours don't look like my side door neighbours. We don't practise the same religion. We wear different shells and we have different ideologies, yet we are still one of the most peaceful countries in the world. When I see rhetoric around the implications of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and what our Constitution is in the future, it really makes me very alarmed.

In the context of social media impacts—digital IDs, for example, and the proposition thereof—in terms of what political parties and the Leader of the Opposition are saying, it really alarms me. I think it is important for our committee to have a commitment in Parliament as to how we're going to move forward on making sure our Charter of Rights and Freedoms and our Constitution are maintained, and that we continue to abide by that.

Now I'll quote articles that have stated, quoting the Leader of the Opposition, that he will pass criminal laws using whatever means. He says: “We will make them constitutional, using whatever tools the Constitution allows.... I think you know exactly what I mean.”

Now, from my perspective, given that this is a person who was part of a team that tried to pass the barbaric cultural practices act and a snitch line on people like me—my mother wears a hijab, for example—and given how diverse our neighbours are, it really alarms me as to where this is coming from.

It also alarms me, Chair, when we talk about a woman's right to choose and see Conservative antics in the House right now, questioning whether a woman can choose what she does with her body and whether we're going to criminalize that, using whatever tools necessary to control what a woman's body is. The implications are very severe for me, and, you know, the Leader of the Opposition continues to say that even if his proposals don't meet the constitutional standards, he'll “make them constitutional, using whatever tools”.

Chair, that is extremely alarming. When you pair that with concerns of privacy within our social media, the framework that we have right now and the fact that we are already really testing the limits of how we make sure we protect the rights of individual Canadians in our country—including the right to privacy, including minority rights, whether it be LGBT, whether it be different religious groups, whether it be a woman's right to choose—it is really very alarming. I think it is incumbent on our committee to pass this motion and get this through the House.

Now, in the ethics committee, we've studied the collection of data, etc., and I'm talking specifically about the right to privacy piece and specifically the digital ID on collecting information from Canadians.

Now the Leader of the Opposition is proposing to leave data, the sensitive data of Canadians, in the hands of a company like Pornhub, for example, and that is, again, a slippery slope as to how far that goes. How are we maintaining and protecting that data? Should that data be there? When we talk about the right to privacy, we really need to ensure that we are maintaining that right to privacy within industry and within our government and in how Canadians' rights are protected. I mean, we've seen what happened with Ashley Madison, with a hack, for example. We've seen MPs with top secret security clearance being blackmailed over their use of the Internet and the photos they have circulated.

Chair, I will reiterate the importance of ensuring that we have the ability as a federal government to ensure our Constitution is maintained and is protected. It is important for all parliamentarians.

Chair, when somebody tells you something, you believe them, and we effectively have been told that our Constitution has a workaround for the Leader of the Opposition. We need to ensure that we protect the rights of Canadians and our Constitution in how we operate here as parliamentarians. I'm hoping that we can pass this motion very quickly.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Thank you, Ms. Khalid.

I have Mr. Kurek, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Brock and then Mr. Housefather.

Go ahead, Mr. Kurek.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Thanks very much, Chair.

It is really interesting to hear the Liberals talk. I'd like to address two things. First is what is an underhanded swipe at a bill that passed the House of Commons with a plurality of support here only a number of months ago, and that is Bill S-210.

What's interesting is there was some support from all parties, but functionally what this motion and Ms. Khalid seem to be doing is to somehow stand up for the very companies that she just stated she didn't trust. She wants to stand up and allow them to distribute violent pornographic material to minors. That is astounding, shocking and, quite frankly, Chair, absolutely disgusting.

I've taken a great interest in Bill S-210 because of the detrimental effects that a young person's exposure to violent, explicit material can have on their mental health and their ability to form productive relationships. For the Liberal Party to be doing the bidding of a company like MindGeek, which runs sites like Pornhub, which is willfully.... The Privacy Commissioner referenced earlier today how they've just completed a study on some of the privacy concerns with that. It's astounding that they would be opposed to this, something that united all senators.

Chair, you've heard me talk, I'm sure, at length about some of the frustrations I have with the other place, as we refer to it, but when S-210 passed unanimously through the Senate, I believe that there were more than 40 different options presented for a site that hosts explicit material to be able to verify someone's age. However, the Liberals don't care about the facts. They want to play politics and suggest that this is about digital ID.

Mr. Chair, I tell you, this is divide and distract at its best. They are doing the bidding of some of the worst corporate players in history, as has been revealed by the good work of Canadian parliamentarians as well as in an exposé in The New York Times that was describing this. That those Liberal members would carry water for that is absolutely unbelievable.

There is a lot more that certainly I could say about that, but it is obvious that either they haven't read Bill S-210 or haven't cared enough about doing the research into what's being proposed and how it can actually protect young people, or they are intentionally trying to divide and distract on an agenda, and I won't even pretend to know what that involves, because it is certainly beyond the pale.

Mr. Chair, I would like to, if I could, share just briefly about some of the assertions related to the Charter. Again, this is what I can suggest is nothing more than an attempt to divide and distract Canadians. What the Leader of the Opposition has made very clear is that when it comes to the most heinous criminals in our history, the Quebec City mosque shooter as an example, the justice reforms that he is proposing would make sure that the only way heinous criminals like that leave prison is in a box.

I know my colleague from Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes said something similar in the House of Commons, but, Chair, the Liberals don't seem to care about that. They care more about trying to, I don't know, score cheap political points or something, to divide and distract, as opposed to having meaningful discussions around justice reform. Certainly, when it comes to the notwithstanding clause, it's as if the Liberals forget that section 33 is a part of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Now, are they deceiving and misleading Canadians on that? It goes back to the very fundamental basics of the Westminster democratic system, and that is the fact that Parliament is the supreme lawmaking authority of the land. I would hope that their intentions are not nefarious, but it certainly leads...and I'll let Canadians be the judge of that.

When it comes to the criminal justice reforms that are being contemplated and suggested by the Leader of the Opposition, it has been very clear, and freedom, Chair, is a sword that slices in both directions, for those you agree with and those you disagree with. For members of the Liberal Party to suggest somehow that they stand up for the charter when they are literally—and this is not the figurative use of the word literally—the only government in Canadian history to willfully suspend charter rights against Canadians.... They did that, and it was found that they had done that illegally.

Chair, it is unbelievable that they would use these sorts of tactics, that they would gaslight, that they would—I don't even know if there are words that are strong enough that would be parliamentary to describe what the Liberals are doing on this.

If they want to discuss the use of the notwithstanding clause, I'm happy to do that, Chair, because there is a very clear case to be made that the most heinous criminals in Canadian history deserve to be behind bars. I challenge members of the Liberal Party to go and tell their constituents that those individuals should walk free on Canadian streets. I challenge them to go to their constituents again when it comes to the issue that I first talked about, when it comes to the suggestion that some of the worst corporate players, some of whom have even moved their operations out of Canada, should somehow have a free pass to distribute explicit material to minors, knowing the devastating impact that has on the mental health of our youth, Chair. We are seeing the worst of what so many people think of when they think of politicians.

Chair, I could certainly say a lot more on this, whether on the constitutionality of what we have been talking about or on the hypocrisy of members of the Liberal Party or on how it is astounding that they are trying to divide and distract in this way to somehow score some cheap political points—maybe because they're desperate, seeing as it's actually Canadians who get to make choices in elections and that is something that no parliamentarian should ever take for granted.

Chair, I will move an amendment, if I may, because I think there is a valid point to be made. This is an opportunity. Let's take the political spin out of what the Liberals are trying to gaslight Canadians with, and let's move to a point where we can have a real discussion about what it means to actually protect the rights and freedoms of Canadians.

Therefore, I would move that we strike the first part of the sentence, up to “the committee”, and then keep paragraph a) and delete paragraph b).

Chair, we will make sure the clerk gets a copy of that in a moment.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

Do me a favour. Just repeat what you said there, Mr. Kurek, on your amendment, please, if you don't mind.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Strike the first part of the first paragraph and keep just “That...the committee report to the House that the committee”, and then keep paragraph a) and remove paragraph b).

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

The way I'm reading it, then, is “that the committee recognizes the importance of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to protect the rights of all Canadians, including the right to privacy.”

Is that what you're proposing?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Yes, except it's “That the committee report to the House that the committee”, and then paragraph a) as you described.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

The amendment is on the floor.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Is that in order?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Brassard]

I'm ruling it in order. Yes.

Go ahead on a point of order.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chair, this whole resolution is about the notwithstanding clause. This amendment removes all references to the notwithstanding clause. It goes against the principle of the original motion. It should not be receivable, and if the chair is ruling it receivable, I challenge the chair.