Thank you very much.
The issues that this committee is studying are important. In particular, I've taken the opportunity since Bill C-270 was introduced in the House of Commons...and with some of the context surrounding it, especially making sure that the Canadians who are facing these incredibly vulnerable situations are protected. There is nothing more devastating to someone and their ability to live a full life than when explicit material, often without consent—or even if it was obtained through consent but is used in a manner that is entirely inappropriate. That destroys people's lives. I know there are, of course, some headline-grabbing incidents that we can all point to, and I know that it's not uncommon that those headlines garner needed attention to this important issue.
Before getting into that, I would note that we are entering a space where, because of the advancements in technology.... I've worked with a number of my colleagues who are very in touch with this. Bill C-270, of course, is dealing with the specifics around material that has been created and distributed without consent, but the whole idea of deepfakes is something that is a growing concern.
With all of us around this table being elected officials, I would imagine we've attended election forums where we've had the chance to discuss at length important issues that our constituents bring forward. I think back to the last couple of elections that I've had the opportunity to run in, but I further think back to the many hours I spent volunteering as a politico in rural Alberta and the various other places where I've had the opportunity to be involved across Canada. With cellphones and cameras everywhere, one assumes that everything now is being recorded. That's just the assumption, or at least that's the attitude I've expected. What is interesting is that in the world in which we live today, it is not simply a camera recording something that speaks to something that happened. With artificial intelligence and some of the technology, and of course animation, including very, very good animation.... I know that occasionally you'll see reports of something that could be video games, and I know there are probably members...because I know that Canada has a booming video game industry, which allows for an augmented reality-type circumstance.
We're entering a space where this confronts us as elected officials on a daily basis when it comes to the politics of the nation. Something could be attributed to you that you did not say but nonetheless is attributed to you. Somebody who may have a political agenda against you could have a video made that could look very realistic. In fact, it's something that I know my team, when these things happen...whether it's me or any other political figure who has something that is known as a deepfake, you report it to Facebook or Twitter or Instagram, whatever the case is.
I think that where there's the intersection with what we're talking about here is that this type of technology really has an impact when a photo can be taken of an explicit nature, which may or may not have been obtained without consent, but certainly, as we've heard, it was not taken for the purposes of distribution. With technological application, there is incredible damage that can be done to somebody's reputation with things that may or may not have actually happened, especially when it comes to individuals who could be in a vulnerable situation, where there are incredible emotions involved and there's quite often shame. We've heard about some of those tragic things.
My encouragement, through you, Madam Chair, to the committee.... This is a space that is evolving very quickly. As we look into some of the specifics surrounding Bill C-270, we have to be aware that the environment about which we are having these discussions is changing dramatically, and there are further risks.
There are tools, I have no doubt, within the justice system. I'm thinking of my colleague Ms. Rempel Garner, who has done a lot of work on this, acknowledging that this cross-section, so to speak, of this tech and people who are in a vulnerable situation can be absolutely destructive to someone's life. It's the importance of having frameworks. What is at this point, I think, in the conversation very much.... This isn't simply because I'm a Conservative and there's a Liberal government, but I think that one thing that quite often is the case is that government, especially in areas regarding criminal matters, is often playing a game of catch-up. We've seen this throughout history, so it's not new, but the pace of the understanding of things like criminal prosecution in relation to how technology is advancing at a breakneck speed...and then you add AI on top of that. What's interesting is the conversation around AI. Of course, you can use ChatGPT. You'll hear news stories about that use and how universities deal with it. There are all of these things that happen, but I think that it's not well understood that the advancement of some of these technologies is not just the advancement of the technology itself but the pace that these technologies allow for advancement. I think that's something that needs to be very much kept in mind.
The circumstance of vulnerable individuals facing content, quite often explicit, that's being shared is the devastating consequence of that and the speed at which it can be distributed. It can be devastating.
We hear the instances that make headlines. I know that many of those involved in this conversation could point to those headline-type instances where somebody's content was shared without consent. They made headlines. Sometimes the content was stolen. I know that, regarding actors and movie stars, you will see a headline that something was stolen from their phone because of a hacker or whatever the case may be. That's one thing, but for every headline, there are untold numbers of individuals who don't have a massive public following, don't have the ability to call a reporter at The New York Times and don't have a legal team to try to deal with these instances. I would encourage the committee, especially surrounding the devastating consequences that can result from this, to be looking out for the proverbial little guy. The team of lawyers, the ability to bring legal action and injunctions against a social media company or an individual is one thing, but when it is somebody who.... Maybe it was because of a domestic challenge, an abusive relationship or something that could have been released because of a simple password hack. There's a whole spectrum to what that could have looked like. It's not just the big instances here.
I know that when it comes to some of the circumstances that are faced here, they touch at some incredibly vulnerable moments for these individuals, and there's the embarrassment that often comes along with that. I know there are instances where people are afraid to bring it up. They just want it to go away. They're hoping it goes away, or they don't want to make a bigger fuss about it.
Over the course of caring about this and making sure that these vulnerable Canadians in particular are protected, you hear some heart-wrenching instances. There is the process by which they are trying to deal with this embarrassing situation, which affects their livelihood because of a job, or it damages relationships. A whole myriad of consequences could come out of it as a result. We are now in a situation where the processes that exist are not designed to help the victims. In some cases, they add further challenges to the vulnerability that these individuals, who are already in vulnerable circumstances, are facing.
As a result, it speaks to the need to ensure that we stop Internet sexual exploitation. There are numerous cases where we have seen specific examples of what this could look like, but we need to do more than just nail down a specific example. It's about making sure there are consequences for these actions.
I would like to share a couple of quotes that I think are incredibly relevant to the conversation. Then I'll get into some of the environment that led us to this point where it seems that some of these bad actors are able to continue working with impunity.
A survivor of a 2014 cloud hack, an actress involved in media, said about this particular bill, “I support [the act]. Canada's Parliament needs to urgently implement [the act] which would save many lives. Everyone deserves basic human rights, dignity and a life without online exploitation.” This individual has the real lived and life experience of facing her content being distributed without her consent. The consequences of that are life-altering. Those of us in public life, we're used to being in the public eye, but for an individual, whether it's an actress or a college student who just got out of a relationship, whatever the case is, there has to be that understanding of the devastating impact that Internet sexual exploitation can have on someone's life.
I have to acknowledge that there are many instances where there are individuals who feel utterly hopeless. As a result, tragically, they have either tried to take or, in some cases, have taken their own lives. Again, it's the devastating consequences of that and the loss of an innocent life because their password was compromised. Maybe they shared an image with somebody, and that was then shared because somebody thought it was funny. It speaks to how there has to be accountability and the whole idea of ensuring that consent is ascertained. Let me talk a little bit about why that is so important.
My work on the ethics committee talks a lot about that consent, about releasing information and about what that looks like. Especially with regard to this online world, I would suggest that there's been a radical shift in the attitudes and how this has been understood over time. However, what I think is clear.... Certainly, when it comes to material that people may or may not like that exists, it is important that the concept of consent is very, very clearly articulated. The reason for that is that, when it comes to consent, somebody can consent, whether it's explicit material or otherwise, and to have that consent ascertained and have a process by which it is lawfully done then empowers that individual.
I know, from my time at the ethics committee when dealing with social media in particular, about the idea of the right to be forgotten. It's a fascinating discussion. It relates directly to these conversations, where we have this intersection. The old adage is that—and I would suggest that it is accurate—once it's on the Net, it never goes away. You can't get rid of it, and some individuals within politics know that very well. However, I would suggest that the idea of the right to be forgotten, what happens with your information, what that looks like in terms of your ability to press “Delete”, and what that means....
Members around this table might be interested to learn that the Library of Congress in the United States sponsors what is called the Wayback Machine. If you ever have a chance, just google the Wayback Machine and go to a website. For example, you could pick a Canadian news website—say, CTV News. What is interesting is that you put that news URL into the Wayback Machine, and you can go back through the number of times that particular website has been archived. You can look back throughout the entire history of that URL's having existed and the content that was on that particular website as it was archived.
Now, in some cases—and I'm sure I don't know the number of times that ctvnews.ca would be visited—it triggers that sort of thing for these types of larger websites. Of course, there are a lot of political happenings in the United States this week, so it might be an interesting thing for anybody who would look back. You could go back to the 2000 election, the 2004 election, the 2008 election. These URLs that are common, you know.... I mentioned CTV News. You could do CNN. You could do Fox News. You could do MSNBC or whatever the case is. You could look back and see that on that day, that's what that website looked like. It's fascinating, because unlike with a book, where you have.... In particular, the Library of Congress has this protocol so that when a book is published, you send the book to the Library of Congress, although I don't think it keeps every single book that is sent to it. However, unlike a book, there's this preservation of data. The flip side of that—and the reason it is so relevant to the discussion we're having here today—is that when something is put on the Internet, it is very, very difficult to get rid of.
When it comes to archiving world events, I think nobody would suggest that there isn't a place to ensure that it can be accurately maintained, to ensure that when a public figure speaks.... All of us in this place, when we speak in the House of Commons, we deal with this very, very specifically in terms of what we all affectionately refer to as Hansard. For those of us who reference a name or a date or something.... I know that there's a whole host of conversations taking place in the House related to SDTC and the Liberals' green slush fund. That is permanently preserved. The neat thing about Hansard, and part of its value for democracy, is that when something is said in the House of Commons, it is there forever. It can be referred to for time immemorial, and there's value to that.
At the same time, we have to ensure that when a bad actor takes information, takes explicit material obtained or distributed without consent, there are clear parameters and an understanding to ensure that we have what I would suggest needs to be attention. You have this permanence that exists on the Internet. It has to be matched with an understanding that there are consequences when somebody is not willing to respect...or is trying to harm, in many cases. I know that it was absolutely shocking when it came to some of the conversations around Bill C-270 and the SISE Act. There's a whole industry on revenge porn. I look at that and wonder how sick it is that this is in fact the case. To ensure that there is a very clear mechanism.... I know the act speaks very specifically both about the production of pornographic material and what that means for explicit...for just defining what that is without one's consent, and then, of course, the distribution of that material. It's important to have those clear parameters. In particular, quite often although not exclusively, it is women, specifically vulnerable women, who face the biggest consequences in relation to these sorts of things. It's not just me saying that. The statistics show that women are disproportionately affected by this.
We need to ensure that there are consequences for the individuals who would attempt to abuse and take advantage of...for whatever reason, whether it's money, power, leverage, whatever the case is, to ensure that there is a clear consequence and an understanding of what the consequences are when it comes to the unauthorized, non-consensual distribution of material that could have devastating consequences.
We are debating the specifics of a motion that would extend debate on this. I mentioned one, and I will read, in a moment, some more quotes that speak to why it's important that this gets reported back, that this gets done.
Conservatives have been very clear that we want a carbon tax election, but to be able to pass Bill C-270.... The fact that it was voted for unanimously in the House of Commons is, I think, a good example of how, in the midst of what is a very political environment, there are those moments when you can say, “Okay, we're doing what's best here.”
If we extend this, however, by 30 days, with it not being reported back on what the original deadline is, it reduces the ability for...and certainly reduces the likelihood that this would become law. The consequences of that relate back to what I've been talking about in terms of making sure that vulnerable Canadians who may be put in these circumstances are ultimately protected. That includes ensuring that those who are disproportionately affected, like women who are in vulnerable situations...that there are clear consequences for this sort of thing. We have to keep that in mind as we discuss these issues.
I would, Madam Chair, like to share as well a quote from the National Council of Women of Canada:
The National Council of Women of Canada...welcomes the proposed Bill “Stopping Internet Sexual Exploitation Act” that calls for amendments to the Criminal Code to protect those whose rights are brutally ignored. Content, acquired and shared without consent, is unacceptable in a just society.
Madam Chair, I think this touches on a few things that I'd like to expand on just very briefly, if I could. The Criminal Code is meant to ensure what's often referred to in philosophy as a social contract. You give up something in order to ensure that something is protected, and that is the case here. As Canadians, we understand that the Criminal Code is that guiding principle that Parliament, in particular, has brought forward and the history of that.
In fact, it was John Sparrow Thompson—who was, I believe, Canada's fourth Prime Minister—when he was justice minister under Sir John A. Macdonald.... He was a Catholic from the Maritimes, and at the time, that was actually a big deal. At that point in time, there was some controversy surrounding that. I know that seems hard to imagine, but certainly back in the late 1800s, there was some controversy around that. In his work as justice minister in the Macdonald government, he brought forward what we now know as the Criminal Code of Canada. Although it's been updated and the language obviously has changed over the last century and a half, there is this understanding that for someone's God-given rights to be protected, there has to be this backstop. There is a threshold that is crossed by criminality. There are obvious answers here. We all believe that murder and things like homicide are wrong.
However, the modern Criminal Code.... I forget. I don't have a copy of the handbook Criminal Code with me here today. I know it's hard to believe. Maybe my colleague from the NDP does. It has hundreds of pages and the outline for what that means for civil society to be able to function in a way that ensures that rights are protected.
As the National Council of Women of Canada has outlined, it's these individuals whose rights have been brutally ignored. I think that speaks to why Bill C-270 and getting it passed quickly is so important. In the case we're talking about, you have Internet sexual exploitation, the non-consensual creation, taking or sharing of explicit content. You have an example where there is an actor—not in the film sense of the word, but someone taking an action that has devastating consequences for another individual. The fact is, we have the opportunity, as Parliament, to be able to very clearly broadcast that clear consequences will exist and that there is a framework if somebody undertakes these actions. Then there is the protection that this would ensure for those who are facing the consequences of these illegal actions. There's that clarity.
Further, the accountability.... I just want to mention very briefly again, Madam Chair, the need to ensure that there are consequences for the corporate actors involved as well. I know that we're talking a lot about those who take and distribute the content, but it's to ensure that there is a clear consequence for the corporate actors involved.
Canada has played host to some of the worst corporate actors, I would suggest, in modern history when it comes to Internet sexual exploitation. I don't want to give them credibility, so I won't mention some of those companies, but it is astounding to see some of the ways that these companies have put Canadians, and also people around the world, at risk because of the ways in which these companies conduct themselves.
I know my colleague from Kamloops was successful in seeing a bill brought forward that changes the name from “child pornography” to “child sexual abuse and exploitation material”. I think that's a simple signal to say, “Look, when it comes to this egregious stuff that exists, it is not something that can happen within civil society.” I believe, just a number of months ago, that bill actually received royal assent. That's a good step and an acknowledgement that Canada is drawing a line here to say what is right and what is wrong.
When it comes to explicit material being created and shared without consent, we have before us the opportunity to, again, share that defining line to say, “Look, as a country, we are saying this is wrong” and send a signal to corporate actors as well, which, in some cases, make billions of dollars off sexual abuse material. It is astounding.
I don't have it in front of me, but I believe it was The New York Times that did an overview of how this Canadian company was responsible through not doing its job. It was a company that provided explicit material online. That was the objective of the company, but it was not doing its job to ensure that the consent of those who were featured on its website had been obtained. Reading through this investigative report, it is absolutely horrifying to see the measures that were undertaken to, in some cases, bully or threaten, whether through financial means or whether through trying to use addiction. Even when, on occasion, consent was obtained, it certainly wasn't done in a way that would stand up in a court of law.
Again, we have before us the opportunity, through Bill C-270, to draw a line here to say that we have an expectation that there will be criminal consequences for individuals and, in the larger sense, corporate actors who are guilty of doing these absolutely egregious things.
Further, the National Center on Sexual Exploitation had this to say, which speaks very well, I think, to what I've just attempted to outline:
The pornography industry systemically fails to verify age or consent — leading to horrific trauma for survivors of sex trafficking, child sexual abuse, and non-consensually shared/recorded intimate images as their sexual exploitation is viewed around the world. It is time for a paradigm shift, and for survivors to be heard. This bill is an important step in that direction.
As I've outlined, corporate actors here are not exempt from this. There has to be that understanding.
That's where we come back to the idea of consent and what that looks like. You download an app on your phone or a program on your computer, and before you're able to use it, there's a long legal explanation. I think most of us have gotten pretty used to that long thing. What do most of us do? We scroll to the bottom and press “Okay”. Sometimes there's a checkbox.
Now, I am not a trained lawyer. There are trained lawyers at the table here. I share with classes that there are only three job requirements to be a politician: You have to be 18; you have to be a Canadian; and you have to get more votes. That leads to a hodgepodge of individuals, some of whom are lawyers. I'm sitting at the table with lawyers. While I've spent a lot of time looking at the law, I am a lawmaker, not a lawyer.
To ensure that we have this understanding that the law is meant to.... There have to be protections that exist. When it comes to the idea of consent and what that looks like, it looks different in different contexts. Obviously, when it comes to the examples we have that led to where we are with Bill C-270, we need to make sure as a society that we have the understanding that it's about more than just scrolling to the bottom and pressing “Okay”. It's about more than just having a contract given to somebody and expecting their John Henry at the bottom. There has to be a full understanding of what that looks like.
Again, to share some of the overall perspective of what was heard from some of the reporting.... I believe it was in the 42nd Parliament when there was a motion whereby Parliament condemned—I don't have the motion in front of me—violent pornographic material and the consequences it had on Canada, specifically for women and girls and vulnerable communities. A devastating side of this is that we've seen how some of these corporate actors have simply failed to do their basic due diligence.
This is where the law in the Criminal Code.... I mentioned earlier John Sparrow David Thompson, who wrote the Criminal Code 140-some years ago. There's a lot that's changed in that period of time. The telephone didn't exist and newspapers were still made by putting lead presses together. Obviously, things change, and we're in an environment today where a video can be made and, in a matter of seconds, somebody's life can be destroyed. I think that's why we need to ensure that the Criminal Code reflects those realities to ensure that there are consequences.
When libel law was first brought into being, the understanding was that you couldn't just make unfounded remarks about somebody. There was that base understanding. Now we have, I think, close to a century's worth of case law in Canada that speaks to that.
Here, though, we have the rapid evolution whereby somebody, because they either made a mistake or got themselves into a situation.... In many cases, they regret it. In some cases, they may have even shared it with implied consent, but certainly not to the extent where it would have been meant.... We have example after example after example. There are many that we'll never hear about, because—and this probably includes our constituents—there are those individuals who have faced these sorts of circumstances, but they simply want them to be in the past and have them stay in the past. They don't want to talk about them. They don't want to come to testify before a parliamentary committee. They don't want to have their name exposed, because of the pain, the injustice and, in many cases, the shame associated with them.
To speak further about some of these bad actors, I would quote here from the London Abused Women's Centre, which said:
Companies like PornHub and MindGeek are normalizing violence against women and girls. The actions of these companies do not protect women and girls from sexual exploitation but the SISE Act can. We know that children, non-consenting adults and trafficked women have been raped and tortured for the world to see on these websites, it is time for them to be held accountable for their actions. Parliament must protect those who are most vulnerable, the SISE Act provides important tools to help accomplish this.
I would add, as that emphasizes some of the discussions I've shared around the corporate bad actors on this side of things, to ensure that there are those consequences, especially in the case of these corporate actors—and I read them in the context of a quote—who may bank off the abuse of, in particular, women. It is absolutely, I would suggest, criminal. The fact that they've been able to get away with it is certainly something that demands action.
I know there's been a lot of conversation around online harms and whatnot. I know the government brought forward a bill, but that's not what's being debated here. I've certainly shared some of my opinions on that. It's the need to take action to ensure that there are consequences and that those who are most vulnerable in our society are, in fact, protected. That speaks to how we're at a place, I would suggest, that is a little bit unique in our country. We have seen a lot of the things that....
Perhaps I will digress just for a moment, because I think this has very clear relevance. I spent some time working in Ottawa. I did an internship. I spent some time when Prime Minister Stephen Harper was in power. While those were the good old days, we can maybe get some common sense back to our country. Nonetheless, it was a real honour to be able to spend some time. At that point in time, my predecessor, the Honourable Kevin Sorenson, whom I have a ton of respect for, was Minister of State for Finance and was able to help work on the last balanced budget that we had in this country—despite promises in the three subsequent elections that this would be the case. Certainly, that has not been followed through.
My wife Danielle, in particular, worked as a volunteer for Joy Smith. Joy Smith is a great story. For those who, I'm sure, are watching, look up the story of Joy Smith, because she is a stellar example of somebody who was not willing to sit back and let injustices happen. When she was first elected and was starting to raise awareness around the idea of human trafficking, a lot of people at that point in time said that doesn't happen in Canada, that just doesn't happen here. That was the response. She shares these stories about how she simply wasn't taken seriously, yet she got involved in politics because of.... I'd encourage people to read her story. I know there are some videos, documentary-type things, that speak about her history and her history on that issue.
She now runs a foundation, the Joy Smith Foundation, that is continuing the work she started when she was in Parliament. My wife had the opportunity to volunteer for Mrs. Smith, and helped detail and track, in some cases, some of the incredible injustices done to Canadians. That was in 2015. When Mrs. Smith started the journey of.... She had two private member's bills passed, actually, which is impressive to all of us around the table who are in Parliament. To see two private member's bills passed in a career is an impressive accomplishment. They were two private member's bills that were helping to ensure that there was action taken against human trafficking. That directly relates to this, because so often those who face these vulnerable situations are victims or, in some cases, periphery victims, which may be the trigger that gets them into a situation where they could be a victim of something as horrific as human trafficking.
Over the course of the Harper government, there was an acknowledgement that, in a country like Canada—the amazing country that it is, with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Bill of Rights that preceded it, and the understanding that we care about the most vulnerable and all these things—you had these egregious actions taking place, in many cases in the very communities and neighbourhoods of what people would say was the Canadian dream. It would be anything but, for those individuals who are facing human trafficking and some of the consequences of this.
Being an Alberta MP, I know that some of us spend a lot of time in airports flying across the country on a weekly basis. You see now that there's human trafficking awareness that's been done. Posters in bathrooms, for example, say that, if you're a victim, you can reach out so that you can get help. It may seem strange that it's become somewhat normalized so that we're able to talk about that today. Well, that started because there was an effort to ensure that something that had previously been happening in the shadows was brought to light and could be combatted.
It's not to say that there wasn't good work. I know law enforcement.... Again, if you look at Mrs. Smith's work, she talks about how her son, I believe, was involved in police operations to help ensure that victims of human trafficking were caught and that the perpetrators were prosecuted and whatnot, before it had garnered national attention. For her, it was something that she had seen and had experienced by walking alongside some of those victims, yet it wasn't something that was on the national radar. Over the course of the Harper government, and I would suggest the awareness that resulted from that, she saw two private member's bills passed, a significant step in the right direction.
There are some stats that I might get into later about how, despite the work that has been done, there are some trends that are certainly not encouraging in terms of human trafficking and what those numbers show in terms of Canada today.
I would, however, like to link this back to Bill C-270, because it speaks to that issue and a very specific part of it. You know, I signed up for Twitter. I think I looked at it the other week. It was, I think, 2009 when Facebook became a thing, or maybe it was the year before that, 2008. These were new technologies, access to the World Wide Web. The web has existed since, I think, 1993 or 1992, something like that. Over the course of 30 or so years, we've seen a rapid evolution of technology. What would have been a case of distributing explicit material that was obtained without consent or taken without consent would have looked very, very different 30 years ago. Yet we are in a circumstance today where it can take on a life of its own because of things like the Internet, algorithms and the ability for things like a video to be shared or a link to be texted and that type of thing.
The organization Defend Dignity, when talking about the stopping Internet sexual exploitation act, has this to say:
Individuals who have been victimized are faced with the overwhelming task of trying to remove illegal content that should never have been distributed and profited from in the first place. It's time for pornography websites to be held accountable. Content should not be hosted without proof that all individuals depicted are adults and have consented to both the creation and distribution of the material on that platform.
They give full support to the stopping Internet sexual exploitation act. Again, that's from the organization Defend Dignity. I think, again, that it speaks to that intersection where you need to be able to hold the individuals and corporate actors responsible.
I was also proud to support Bill S-210, which speaks to some meaningful age verification. I know the Liberals have tried to share some misinformation about that, which I'm a little bit confused about because some of their members initially had voted in favour of that. I know that work was done to try to ensure that, while respecting Canadians' rights, you would stop what has been very clearly shown through studies and through the work that has been done.... When children are exposed to explicit content, it can have a detrimental effect on their mental health. I'm a little bit confused as to why the Liberals have tried to politicize that particular issue, but I'd be happy to maybe hear from them at some point on that matter, because certainly I think that seems like common sense, similar to what we're discussing here today.
Again, there would be an expectation that there would be accountability, to ensure that those corporate actors are not.... It's a little bit like.... You know, it's illegal to sell cigarettes to a minor, because nicotine is addictive and it's not good for you. It has devastating health impacts. Personally—and I know there may be smokers in the room—I don't smoke, and I think that it's a bad habit, but if somebody chooses to do that, well, I guess it's their right to do so. I can respect that, but we have rules and an understanding in our society that you can't have a tobacco company target advertisements towards young people—they can't advertise in Canada any longer, period—because they're not able to make the judgment call that is required to be able to deal with the addictive properties of nicotine and the health impacts, etc.
When it comes to accessing something that could have devastating impacts on mental health and can very much change the perspective of what healthy relationships are and should be, it just makes sense that there would be that meaningful age verification. That's not to say that if somebody wants to access explicit material, as much as someone may disagree with that as a life choice.... It would ensure that their rights are protected, but young people.... I mentioned smoking and buying tobacco products, but it's the same thing with other things. It's the same thing with alcohol. It's the same thing with cannabis. You don't sell that stuff to minors, because minors aren't equipped to be able to make decisions related to that.
I think that it is one of those things where, just because it's online, it doesn't mean that.... In fact, I would suggest that it has a pretty clear correlation with what we're discussing here today, especially in the timeliness and being able to pass it and the overlapping relevance of the two issues. There is online gambling allowed in Canada now, but it is illegal for somebody who is underage to participate in online gambling. Yet it is not illegal for them to access explicit material that would otherwise be illegal for them to access, for example, if they were to go into a convenience store and wanted to purchase that sort of content there.
With that, I would suggest that these overlapping issues, while closely connected, speak to the heart of a suite of changes that can be made to ensure that there are consequences for actors who would perpetrate these actions, whether from the corporate side by not ensuring that there's consent for explicit material that is uploaded, or whether for the individuals themselves, to ensure that a clear line in the sand is drawn accordingly.
The Vancouver Collective Against Sexual Exploitation said this:
As a non-partisan collective of diverse individuals, survivors, and organizations working together to end all forms of sexual exploitation, VCASE strongly supports [Bill C-270].... Canadians, especially the young and vulnerable, urgently need this protection. We urge all members of Parliament to support this bill.
Madam Chair, the good news is that, in the second reading vote.... For those watching, I'll just explain a little bit, because it's always a little bit confusing, I think, when people hear things like “first reading”, “second reading”, etc. First reading is when a bill is introduced. Second reading, when it comes to a private member's bill, is when it has the opportunity to be debated within a private members framework, which is guaranteed and awarded via lottery in terms of the order in which something can be introduced.
I've introduced a bill myself, Bill C-407. I'm not close on the order, and it's likely that, in a Parliament like this, we're not going to get to my bill being debated. It's about the national symbol for a livestock brand in Canada, which is very unrelated to this, so I won't talk about that bill here today, for fear that I'll be point-of-ordered, but I look forward to it. I'd be happy to send you information off-line. It's a great way to share our western heritage and frontier heritage in our country.
Second reading is generally the first opportunity that MPs have to vote on an issue, and while it's called “second reading”, it is the first step of the debate process. As soon as second reading ends, that triggers a vote. It's different for private members' business versus government business, but it follows a similar pattern.
The neat thing...and it relates to what VCASE has asked for here. They've specifically said that they're non-partisan and they want a non-partisan approach to support Bill C-270. I have some good news on that front. There was, I believe, unanimous support for Bill C-270 at that second reading stage, which was the first opportunity for a vote to take place in the House of Commons.
Then, if any bill passes the second reading vote, it is referred to a committee. Because this is a bill related to criminal matters, of course, the rightful place for it to come to was the justice committee, and I'm so thankful for the opportunity to be able to join you here today to discuss it.
When it comes to private members' business—and this is quite different—legislation takes precedence in committee time. Committees decide themselves what they want to study, but when it comes to House references, it takes on a little bit of a different flavour because the House references that a bill...or it could be a motion. In fact, at the heritage committee, through kind of a bizarre set of circumstances, the Liberals actually sent back a study to committee that condemned the paying of $18 million in bonuses to CBC executives, but I digress on that because, again, that's not related to the subject here. However, it was a bizarre set of circumstances so, of course, we were glad to have the opportunity to deal with that at the heritage committee.
There was a change made when it comes to the specifics around how a committee can deal with private members' business. This is important because, with a government bill and the reference of a bill to committee when it's a government bill, you have the weight of the government behind it to ensure that the bill is studied and passed, and it can be incredibly complex. You have something like an omnibus budget bill. Despite the Liberals saying that they never put omnibus bills forward, they still seem to end up before various committees, but it can take a long time. You have a lot of different aspects. You have witnesses and you have discussion, and when there's controversy, it can take a very long time. We saw this, for example, when it came to Bill C-21. The Conservatives brought forward a whole host of issues, and there was an outcry from across the country, whether it was from indigenous groups or others, when it came to how the Liberals were approaching the issue of firearms.
What I think is important to note here is that with private members' business, there was a tendency previously...and this was not unique to the Canadian Parliament. Our Westminster system of governance has.... There are quite a few Westminster-style Parliaments that, of course, we reference. In fact, the opening line of the Constitution Act of 1867, known previously as the British North America Act, is that we will have a Parliament similar in structure to that of the United Kingdom. Don't quote me on the exact words, but that's very close to what it says.
In the United Kingdom, there is a House of Commons, and in their case, they have a House of Lords, who are peers, which includes the dukes and duchesses, etc., while also bishops and peers are appointed for various reasons, whether that be through family peerage or appointments because of people who have done notable things. I've had the opportunity to visit, and it's very interesting. I think there are about 900 lords, but generally they only have about 100 who are there, and they're only paid when they show up, interestingly. Maybe that's something we could take into account when it comes to how we pay our senators.
It's similar in terms of the structure to the Westminster style, where you have a bicameral legislature. What has been noted, not just in Canada, but at different points in time, is that when there is a bill that passes, despite opposition, generally from the government—although I don't think it has to be limited to that, as there could be a specific actor or person who has influence—it could go in and just die at committee. That was a tendency for private members' bills. If the government didn't like it, it could just die at committee. They just wouldn't study it.
It's interesting, though, because changes were made to the Standing Orders. For those watching, the Standing Orders are basically the rules by which, whether it's a committee or the House itself, the House of Commons governs itself. It's called a standing order. It's a fairly thick book of all the different standing orders. It's stuff that makes a lot of sense that nobody disagrees with. Then there's stuff that can be more controversial. Interestingly, generally standing orders were agreed to by consent of all parties. The Liberals, however, broke that trend and actually imposed votes with changes to the Standing Orders that were not universally agreed to by members of Parliament.
When it comes to private members' business, there was this history of bills that they didn't like going to committee to die. That was noted by all parties, because a member of Parliament being the highest elected office in the land...which is an interesting thing. I think a lot of people forget. I couldn't believe it, what must have been.... I noted that CBC spent a lot of time covering the American election as of late. I thought it was interesting that Canadian tax dollars were going to cover the American election. Nonetheless, you have the members of Parliament, who are given a level of autonomy, as should be the case. It's very specific being an MP. It's this unique office that is held. You occupy a seat in the House of Commons, the same as, interestingly, the Prime Minister. In fact, when I speak to classes, I ask them how many votes the Prime Minister gets to cast on election day. How many votes does the Leader of the Opposition get to cast? It's always interesting, because it's a confusing question. It's almost too easy. They get to cast one. Likewise, I ask how many seats the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition gets in Parliament. Likewise, it's almost confusing in its simplicity. It's like, well, you get one. I would suggest that this is the strength of the Westminster democratic system and that is why I'm so vocal in its support.
There's the ability for MPs to bring forward a private member's bill, like we have before us with Bill C-270. We have the ability for an MP to do so. However, because somebody didn't like what they had to say, even though it passed, it would go to committee to die. What is an interesting anecdote is that this was seen to be, and not just by those who faced those circumstances, a scenario where it was removing the rights of members to be able to actually exercise their duties as a duly elected member in the unique circumstances when something might have been supported and then sent to committee and it wasn't able to move forward. There was what I would suggest was a creative—and, quite frankly, I support it—ability for there to be an automatic reporting mechanism for private members' bills.
This is why we have this here today. The government is trying to extend the study of this bill when we have clear, unanimous support. For various reasons, they are saying that we need to delay it. The committee can do that. That's a mechanism within the Standing Orders. It gives them the ability to delay the reporting back to the House. We could have been seized with this and we had the opportunity to deal with this before, but the key here is that we need to get it back to the House. As the chair very aptly noted at the beginning, that will happen here in just a week or so.
The reason why these mechanisms exist is an important evolution to our democratic system to ensure that in the case of members and this unique ability we have through what is a private member's bill, which any member can introduce..... As I mentioned before, I have introduced one, although it likely won't be debated, and that's by nature. There had to be a fair way to figure out who gets to go first, so to speak, and it was decided that this would be done by pulling names out of a hat. I don't actually know the history. It would be an interesting thing, I'm sure, to look into. It's kind of an archaic way, but at least you know it's fair and for people who get picked to go first, that's done in a way that is very straightforward, fair and without bias. To note, I believe government ministers and the Prime Minister do not get a private member's bill because of the nature of their positions and the influence they hold.
We are in a circumstance here today where we have a bill before us, Bill C-270, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding pornographic material—the stopping Internet sexual exploitation act—which is supported by all members of Parliament. Again, that's a great show of non-partisan support. We have the ability to, on occasion, ensure.... I would just note that I think that quite often the headline-grabbing stuff that comes from this place is the controversy, and rightfully so. Trust me, I'm happy to talk about controversy. In fact, I look forward to being able to continue on the discussion of the green slush fund that's taking place in the House of Commons and the controversy associated with that. It's now more than a month that Parliament's been paralyzed by the government's refusal to release these documents, which they could do at any point in time, but I digress on that. I look forward to litigating that in the House.
Here you have an example of where MPs agree on something, and I wish, just on occasion, that a headline would show that MPs agree on, in this case, fighting Internet sexual exploitation. Wouldn't that be a great headline? It would showcase that MPs agree that some of the most vulnerable in our society need to be protected. When I referenced the quote from the Vancouver Collective Against Sexual Exploitation, they called on all MPs to support this bill. They're doing so from the perspective of being a non-partisan organization. We can't overstate how there are these moments where you have that cross-partisan collaboration. The unanimous support of something like this bill, I think, is a huge opportunity.
With some of the history that I outlined when it comes to the reporting requirements, we don't want this bill to die in committee. It would certainly be a shame for this bill to not go forward because of the proposed 30-day extension. Let's get back. We agree with it.
Getting unanimous support on anything is certainly very impressive. I think it speaks to how we can accomplish an objective here, which is protecting people who otherwise don't have the legal protections at this point in time, but have faced unbelievable circumstances that could be life-changing. In many cases—I've read some of the testimony and the stories—they've had truly life-devastating circumstances related to the non-consensual sharing of their materials.
I would, as well, like to speak about the Salvation Army. We all know the Salvation Army. I'm sure there would be very few of us across the country who would not have a Salvation Army in their constituency in one form or another. I know the work that they do in terms of helping the most vulnerable, whether it be through addictions recovery, whether it be through ensuring that the most vulnerable are supported, or whether it be through their church and spiritual care. I know I've spoken to so many, and in the work that the Salvation Army does they're driven by that true love that's talked about throughout the Bible, a desire to see our communities and people serve that whole idea of the greatest commandment: love God, love people. The Salvation Army certainly does that incredibly well.
I will quote what they have to say about Bill C-270:
The Salvation Army has worked closely over the years with people who have experienced or survived sexual exploitation. We know that their voices and wishes are rarely heard or respected. The Stopping Internet Sexual Exploitation Act is an important step toward establishing safeguards to protect adults and minors from having unwanted images of them posted and shared over the internet for commercial gain at their expense.
I want to talk about a side of the conversation here that I don't think is as well understood. We talk about some of the headline-grabbing issues and whatnot, but part of what Bill C-270 does.... This was highlighted, in particular, in the New York Times report that talked about some of the studios that, as a business model, produce explicit content. That, I would suggest, is probably not a comfortable subject for many people to talk about, the abuses that would often take place, so people would just say, well, that happens over there, so we'll just let them do that; that's those people making those choices.
But what was learned over the course of some of that study, and I know we've had that before various committees before this Parliament, is that we see how it's not as simple as that. These are not studios that have actors coming in good faith to create this sort of content. In many cases, it has a close connection to human trafficking. It has a close connection to sexual exploitation. In many cases, there's a corporate structure that ends up complicating the ability for accountability to take place. It's not just a cameraman and a producer and whatever is required to create that sort of content, but the legal complications associated with that have inhibited even some individuals within these sectors who may have initially consented to create certain material and end up being in a circumstance where they are not paid, not given the monetary promises that were initially made to them.
Certainly, when it comes to not honouring a contract.... But then because of the legal complexities associated with some of that and because of the legal ambiguity that exists with the sharing of that information.... If this was the case in any other sector, if it was a Hollywood-type television movie, there is a whole bunch of copyright case law associated with that content and how it gets protected. There are clear protections that exist. Yet when it comes to somebody who may have, in good faith, decided to enter into a contract, yet they're not being paid for the work that they did, that is wrong. I think it is another example where you have to create clear criminal consequences for an instance where you see abuse take place. In that case, the abuse may not have been in the initial stages, but it certainly would be the case later on when a contract was not being honoured.
At this point in time, it has become incredibly difficult for these individuals to be able to get compensation, even though the companies that are hosting their content are making, in some cases, billions of dollars, because it is an absolutely massive industry. In some cases, we hear how promises were made by these recruiters and these producers, whatever the case is, and they were not kept to begin with, but they were told, “Don't worry, you'll get paid,” and then they ended up not getting paid, and it then contributed to a downward cycle in these individuals' lives. Again, this disproportionately seems to affect women—how they were taken advantage of in the beginning and told that they would be compensated, but then they ended up not being compensated. Certainly, it comes to the need for, again, a line to be drawn, that Canada is not a place where we allow this sort of thing to happen.
In particular, I will reference this because of the context in which we find ourselves speaking in relation to the Salvation Army. I know the work they do in terms of shelters, addictions and recovery—there's a lot of good work that's done there—but so often we see, whether it's somebody...because of the revenge of an ex or whether it be a circumstance when it comes to a contract that was signed with a big company where they were promised they would get paid but ended up not getting paid, you have these two very different sides of a similar cycle of exploitation that exists.
You have individuals who end up being the victims of what can, in many cases, become a difficult circumstance to overcome. In many cases, we hear stories of how drugs and alcohol fuel much of the recruitment, and that's where, in some cases, if you call them actors, they are recruited, and then a cycle of addiction happens and on and on it goes. You have a circumstance where a cycle of abuse started, and then it has continued and can, in many cases, have absolutely devastating consequences.
To pull this back and make the connection with how this has a direct correlation with human trafficking.... Just for the benefit of those who are watching, I'm very proud of the work of many of my colleagues. I mentioned Joy Smith, although we didn't overlap; she chose not to run again in 2015. Many of my colleagues have done incredible work, and there is another example of where there's been cross-partisan co-operation in that regard, to help combat things like human trafficking.
Quite often, I think people need to acknowledge that human trafficking is not somebody being put in handcuffs and thrown in the back of a van. It can be somebody who walks by you in the airport who is dressed in nice clothes. It can be somebody who is not handcuffed by physical means but handcuffed by a video of them doing something compromising, by addiction, by mental health challenges or by a whole series of other things. I think that one of the keys here and why Bill C-270 is so important to this larger conversation is that it provides a very clear framework to say that in Canada, this is not okay.
There's more work that needs to be done to combat human trafficking. I know I mentioned earlier some of the startling statistics in terms of how that has been growing. We have the opportunity to see, in short order, without an extension of the debate, a bill that was supported by everybody, and to be able to say, “Okay, here is how we actually get some of this stuff done, take action and ensure there are consequences for the egregious acts of a few that are devastating so many.”
I would, Madam Chair, like to share another quote in support of this bill from an organization called Survivor Safety Matters. It goes as follows:
Survivor Safety Matters believes that every person should have the right to protect their privacy and have control over their personal information and images. We support the SISE Act and the requirement for informed consent to be obtained before pornographic images of an individual can be shared with anyone. It is no secret that women and girls are routinely degraded and exploited online through the unauthorized sharing of their private and personal images. This causes lasting harm to the individual that often cannot be undone.
Madam Chair, just to highlight the last sentence there, it said, “This causes lasting harm to the individual that often cannot be undone.” I think that we have here, again, headline-grabbing tragedies and headline-grabbing circumstances, and it could be a movie star who has images that are shared without their consent. Of course, that's wrong and needs to be condemned. You have the tragedies that exist, and I know there are a whole host of examples that make it out to more than just regional media, but then think of the number of people who suffer in quiet shame and suffer in silence.
My hope is that part of the discussion surrounding this bill would ensure—even if those individuals probably don't want to come and testify and share their story before a parliamentary committee because of some of the shame and embarrassment and fear of the damage that it could do to their professional reputation or their personal reputation, whatever the case is—that we acknowledge the harm and the violation of the individual that can't be undone. Disproportionately, this does affect women—the statistics show that very clearly—although it is certainly not limited to women and vulnerable people. It's the sort of thing where you may have differences in the types of response based on where you come from and how much money your family has or whatever the case is. There'd be a difference maybe in the type of response, but it's the sort of thing where this is not going to be a crime that simply happens to people without money or people with money. This is something that can affect anyone. Again, it disproportionately affects women, although it is not limited to them.
We can have the opportunity to provide clear definitions surrounding this to ensure that we have an ability to stand up for those who are most vulnerable and to ensure that there is the space within our justice system and the parameters that are needed within our Criminal Code to be able to say, “Okay, here is what is not allowed,” and ensure that both the individuals involved and also the bad corporate actors would be held to account.
I know my colleague with whom I served on the ethics committee, and despite having significant political differences, there were times when we would find agreement when it came to things like consent and the right to be forgotten and whatnot. I touched a little bit on that earlier, but I think that the idea of consent and the meaningful nature of that is something that is important.
I'll use an example. If a thief robs a convenience store with a gun and asks the person behind the counter to hand over the cash from the register, and that person hands over the cash, is that consent? I think anybody would say, “Well, absolutely not. There's nothing consensual about that.” You could say, “Well, the action of that individual handing over the cash must imply consent, or it must say that they did it willingly.” However, you have a very clear instance and an extreme example where people would say, “Well, it's just common sense.” The person guilty of the crime here is the individual who was pointing the gun or the knife at the clerk behind the counter. There's nothing consensual about that interaction. You wouldn't want to call it a relationship, but it's certainly an interaction between a thief and a worker who was being robbed.
I think that it's that context that I would encourage those who are watching to consider when it comes to explicit content that might have been taken. You do not have a consensual type of circumstance that always exists when it comes to the information, the content. You may have obtained it in a way that was questionable, but you'd be able to point back and say, “Oh, well, there was consent.” Well, that's...especially when it comes to vulnerable individuals or even somebody who may not be in a vulnerable life situation. It could have been a vulnerable instance in their life. We need to ensure that there is that very clear protection that exists, and just to ensure that the idea of consent is very clearly articulated, which is why this bill talks about how...and this, in particular, is so important when it comes to the corporate actor side of things. It needs to have that clarity.
The word that stands out.... I won't read the entire definition, but it does say that it is a “voluntary agreement”. It has to be voluntary. It's not something that can be forced. To use the example of the clerk and the thief, that's not a voluntary arrangement, nor are so many of the circumstances where consent might be suggested—when it comes to addiction or when it comes to some of the circumstances related to human trafficking, where some of this content seems to be created, etc.
To emphasize, the need for consent and that ability to consent to something hinge upon the understanding that there has to be a voluntary nature to that arrangement, and then if somebody is making a voluntary agreement, giving consent, well, that is something that is then able to.... You know, when it comes to explicit content, while one might not like that or might disagree with that on the personal side of things, if you are giving that voluntary consent, well, then that is something for which there is an ability for that content to be distributed, but without that.... The crux is that it has to be that voluntary consent, and we see too many examples, Madam Chair, where that is simply not the case.
We mentioned a little bit before just how, when it comes to survivors, there are a lot of individuals who suffer in silence. This can have a devastating impact on mental health, and that can fuel addiction and other challenges. I would just suggest that we have a clear understanding that this sort of thing, whether it's something that has been shared online.... You hear some stories where somebody made some content and either didn't initially realize what they were doing or they were forced into it, or it was in relation to addiction or whatever the case is, or it comes to more of the revenge side of things. You have these instances where that hangs over an individual for the rest of their life. It is something that has a deep impact on mental health. Throughout the rest of their life, there is the possibility that the person....
In fact, I read a very poignant survivor story where it talked about how they had just come from.... The last time I looked at this was in the last Parliament, when we were discussing some of these issues at the ethics committee, so you'll forgive me for not having the story exact. It was something along these lines: This young lady had just shared her story about being involved in human trafficking and getting out of it. She had never been paid for some of the content, and she had tried to have it removed. It was a terrible, heart-wrenching story that existed out of what she called a mistake she had made early in her life. Coming out of this testimony, she was in an elevator and somebody recognized her from the content she had been fighting so hard to see removed from some of these popular websites that were continuing to distribute the very material. It was that for her. It was a story she shared after the fact.
I read this. How devastating it was for her to try to combat it, yet even in the midst of trying to combat these circumstances, somebody in an elevator pointed out the exact thing she was trying to address.
When you create clear parameters around what consent is and ensure that with both the making of this explicit material and the distribution of it, there is clarity when it comes to this in the context of there being accountability, then these actors, whether they are individuals or companies, can be held accountable.
I have a few more quotes that I'd like to get to, but I'll just speak to there being a whole host of circumstances around that. One of the reasons I appreciate Bill C-270 and why it needs to get back to the House to be debated and voted on at third reading.... If the government would just hand over those documents, we could get back to private members' business. Again, I don't want to distract from the Bill C-270 conversation, but it seems like there's an increasingly close connection.
One thing I think is helpful for folks to understand about this bill is that it ensures that the context surrounding the instance of the content that might be created or distributed.... There are two pieces to this. They're connected, although they're very different in terms of the instance....
You have a host of issues in Bill C-270. This is not always common when it comes to private members' bills, so I appreciate the work my colleague has put into ensuring that this is comprehensive and that there is a full understanding of everything associated with what is required to ensure that the line in the sand, so to speak, in Canada can be drawn.
It talks about what the punishment is, including the different types of offences and what the sentences for them could be. There's the evidence and there are the commercial purposes surrounding some of this information.
There's the issue surrounding age verification. I referenced earlier just how significant it is as a symbol that we've changed the name so that it's child exploitative material in this country. It's no longer something that anybody could suggest is anything other than disgusting, criminal, exploitative material when children are involved in this sort of thing, which surrounds the idea of age verification. There's that age verification side of things. Obviously, if it's someone who is underage, that goes into an entirely different set of.... I hope every time that happens, the book can be thrown at those individuals and they can go exactly where they belong.
However, when it comes to the aggravating factors, the bill very specifically outlines those. There is an understanding of the questions surrounding them. Because this is a rapidly evolving space, there is the need for both clarity and the understanding that with this bill.... This is an evolving space. The technology we are dealing with is evolving at a pace that is hard to keep up with. It is certainly moving faster than any of us can comprehend.
I mentioned that a bit earlier in terms of some of the peripheral challenges that exist and some of the work that one of my colleagues is doing on deepfakes, artificial intelligence and including what victimization means. My colleague from Langley—Aldergrove and I have talked about this in the past, but the idea of victimization changes when, all of a sudden, there is the ability for a computer to start creating content that could be based on things that are not.... It's changing things, and it could be explicit material that doesn't necessarily have a victim. I know there are some complications with a lack of examples, both in case law and in our legal frameworks in this country. We don't necessarily have a clear answer for what that is and what that should look like, especially when we have, in our case, 150-some years' worth of legal precedent that is based on victimization versus other factors. We have to be willing to come and address this.
I was disappointed that when the Liberals introduced Bill C-63, they didn't address that stuff. They certainly brought forward some things that would silence and could be weaponized against things like freedom of speech and freedom of expression, but they didn't actually address some of the real challenges we are facing when it comes to the idea of online harms. This bill really gets to the crux of that matter. It talks about the “maker” and a “distributor”. There are some specifics about those and what they look like.
This is an interesting dynamic that exists when it comes to the issues surrounding this particular bill. Particularly for those watching, I'll explain this very briefly. Quite often—in fact, in all instances—what happens is that a bill.... I talked a bit about the Westminster parliamentary process before and how it is unique in the sense of the autonomy members have.
Just as a shout-out, I suspect there are some Liberal members who wish they had voted for the Reform Act at their first caucus meeting, but I don't want to get distracted here.
One of the things that are key is the parliamentary supremacy in our governmental system that is so fundamental in how we do things. I think its true impact and the importance it has in the way we do things are sometimes undervalued.
It's evolved over time. For example, we have a constitutional framework in this country, whether it be the Constitution Acts of 1867 to 1982.... There are actually a whole bunch of other Constitution acts related to small changes that have been made, such as the admission of provinces into the federation and the creation of the territories. In fact, we voted on one. My colleague from Regina-Lewvan amended the Constitution, through a motion in the House of Commons, in relation to an archaic tax issue dating back 140-some years, I think. He amended that.
The Constitution has an amending formula, and there are a whole host of acts surrounding that. What's unique, though—and this is actually part of what differs between the Canadian circumstance and what is referred to as the “mother Parliament” in the United Kingdom—is that we have far more written and defined frameworks of what our constitutional framework looks like in Canada than the United Kingdom has. Theirs is largely based on the assumption of tradition that has long been litigated.
Again, for those who are watching, the prime minister, as an individual, is not mentioned once in our Constitution—not just the current Prime Minister, but the title of prime minister. That's tradition.
The reason I use that as an example is that we have this understanding that it's Parliament that creates acts, so it is by the power of Parliament that anything gets accomplished in terms of a governing perspective. Then it gets a little bit complicated when you add common law and civil law into the discussion and the impacts those have on the Supreme Court. It includes the history of the coming together of two very different systems and the creation of what is modern-day Canada. On that side, I'd let the lawyers in the room speak to more of the specifics of that.
What is interesting and the reason I explain that when it comes to the relevance to Bill C-270 is that Parliament is basically applying itself to a criminal matter, saying, “This is our expectation.” Then it does create some space for regulations to be made to ensure that it gets done.
Everything that exists in terms of government in Canada—and this is something that often gets forgotten, actually.... In fact, there was a little bit of controversy when—I believe it was around 2015, maybe just after the 2015 election—a reporter said that, well, government stays but Parliaments come and go. In a sense, that is practically true. However, the only reason government exists is that Parliament says it does, so a department exists because Parliament says that a department exists—or not. Government is, in effect, a function of Parliament.
I'll say that again, because it's a very important aspect of how our system works. Government, in our Westminster system of governance, is a function of Parliament, and it's a key part of how we ensure that things actually get accomplished. This is part of why the power that can be exercised through the process of a private member's bill and the reporting requirement to get back to the House so that we can do our best to get this passed without having a delay on something, whether it was 338 members.... There may have been a few individuals who were paired or not there, but the fact that it received unanimous support is a big deal.
The fact that Parliament is able to project itself and say, “This is our expectation. Here will be the penalties. Here is what our expectation is. Here is the line in the sand that says that this is not a permitted activity in our nation,” is key.
The act very specifically empowers different government departments to say, “Here's how we're empowering you to make sure that this gets fulfilled.” That is a key element of how we ensure that it actually solves the problems that it is set out to, in fact, solve.
I know that there's a lot of talk about what's happened, from all political sides and whatnot, when it comes to what's been dominating the headlines for our friends south of the 49th parallel.... I think we are south of the 49th parallel here, actually, but I come from the west, where the 49th parallel is a big deal. It's one of those key differences between the way that we govern ourselves north of the border and the way that the Americans govern themselves in the sense of their constitutional republic.
I lament that we don't have more constitutional history taught in our schools. I find it really interesting, and I won't get too much into this because I might not be able to stop talking. However, the whole Americanization of Canadian discourse and how the Liberals are famous for this.... They are often accusing their political opponents of it, but they are truly the ones that often, and throughout Canadian history, have....
I'll just share this very brief anecdote. When John A. Macdonald won his second majority government I think it was, the then Liberal Party wanted to build the Canadian Pacific Railway through the States, because it would have been easier. Wow, we might not have had a country today if that had been the case. Anyway, I digress on that front.
Another quote that is, I think, very important to share in the context of the discussion we're having is from the Montreal Council of Women. It says the following:
On behalf of the membership of the Montreal Council of Women (MWC) I wish to confirm our deep concern for those whose lives have been upended by having their images involuntarily and/or without consent shared on websites and other platforms such as the Montreal based PornHub. The proposed “Stopping Internet Sexual Exploitation Act” bill calls for much needed amendments to be made to the Criminal Code to protect children and those who have not given consent for their images and other content to be shared and commodified.
I've talked a bit about the idea of consent, about the corporate actors involved and the amendments to the Criminal Code, and just a little of the history surrounding some of those things, but I would just note there's one word there that I think deserves being highlighted in addition to the entire quote and the endorsement of the SISE act. That is the idea of this content being commodified.
I think it's a key word that deserves a bit of exploration, because when it comes to...you have in many cases.... I've shared some of where this explicit material...how it might have been obtained, whether it was consensual or not, whether it was known that it would be taking place or not. Those are all things that need to be addressed. This bill does a good job of helping get to the point where we can start to do exactly that.
There is, though, the idea of the commodification of something like this. Certainly there's, I think, a larger philosophical and political argument that could be had about the commodification of intangible things, but I want to pare this down to the very basics of what this means for an individual who would have their picture, or video, or it could be something else that is revealing.... The fact that you have something that could be commodified for the monetary.... The whole idea of a commodity is that it by definition is something that then would be bought and sold, but here is, again, where we had that previous understanding of what a relationship is between a thief and the clerk behind the counter being told to hand over the cash. You have something similar here.
This is not a fair trading relationship in terms of what a commodity would be. You have, in many cases, corporate actors that are making decisions on how their platforms work that have devastating consequences. You have the individual who is the subject of this material who did not give consent, or the consent they did give was not voluntary, as we explored very briefly here just a few minutes ago.
You have that commodity idea that there's a back-and-forth. This is not that. It is the fact that it's without the consent, without the ability for the individual who is the subject of the content.... They have been removed from this commodification type of exchange. As a result, they are impacted the most, and we've talked a little bit about some of the devastating consequences, whether that be mental health, whether that be shame, leading to addiction, whatever the case may be.
You have an example here, though, where the subject has been removed from the exchange, and that is an absolutely devastating consequence. I would suggest further that what makes it truly something that should be criminal is the fact that they are the ones who face the most significant impacts of that.
I think it speaks to how important it is that the weight of the justice system can be involved in ensuring that you can stop that exchange—that commodification of something that should never have been commodified because the subject who has been commodified was not a beneficiary and was not involved in the decision-making process. As we've discussed, the consequences can be absolutely horrific.
Another quote from an organization that has.... I've talked a bit about the United Kingdom's parliament, but—
