Canadian Heritage Committee on June 11th, 2024

[Dr. Jocelyn Monsma Selby]

Children are finding sexually explicit content, illegal content, on many platforms like Wikipedia and TikTok—you name it. It's just fascinating where they're finding this material.

A device-level control with age-assurance technology is the only answer, because you're not just finding this material on porn sites; it's everywhere. The places you can find it will blow your mind.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

What mechanisms could be put in place?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Ms. Thomas. Thank you very much.

I just want to inform the committee that Mr. Krishnamurthy is back, if you wish to question him. He had left, but he's come back.

Next is Patricia Lattanzio for six minutes, please.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to thank everybody for being here today.

I'm glad that Mr. Krishnamurthy is back, because I'd like to address the following question to him.

There is no question that everyone present here and engaged in this important discussion in other forums, both nationally and abroad, perhaps wants one outcome above all others, and that is to ensure that children are interacting free from threat or violation when online. Also, I think that we all agree on the importance of outlining and establishing safety standards to see that this is achieved. The issue, however, seems not in the “what” but in the “how”.

Mandatory age verification technology, as we know, is still in the early stages, not just in its refinement but also in its conception. It's an important element of the conversation, but it has been tried and it has failed in multiple U.S. states, such as Louisiana, Utah and Texas. As you likely know, VPNs, or virtual private networks, exist as a means of circumventing both the age restriction controls for children and the means of tracking offenders. This is an important nuance to consider. These tools can significantly hamper the utility of existing age verification technology as they relate to offenders and victims.

Here is the question: How does age-appropriate design and language seek to address these issues and improve the safety standards for children?

[Vivek Krishnamurthy]

Thank you very much for that question, which is a difficult one to answer, but let me try my best to speak to some of the points you raise.

I'm intimately familiar with the age verification laws that have been enacted in the United States and some other jurisdictions. My view is that these laws are ineffective not just because of the technological points that you raised in the question, but also because we have a fundamental problem, which is that this technology is not mature and poses many risks to the privacy and cybersecurity of individuals who are using the Internet. This is a solution that, as technology develops, may be better. This is why I believe that the Senate bill is ill-considered at this time.

As to age-appropriate design as a different concept, the idea of age-appropriate design is that websites or other online services that cater to children, or that are likely to have young people as users, must incorporate, by design, various kinds of protections to ensure that they are used in an appropriate manner or that they are protected from misuse.

I think this is a very important set of interventions that get to the previous discussion that was had with Ms. Thomas, which was regarding the prevalence of this kind of harmful content in many parts of the Internet. The idea here is, again, to reduce the prevalence of that content by making sure that sites that appeal to children or that are likely to be used by children have measures in place to keep them safe.

I think the larger point that I'd like to make here is that this is a very complex set of problems that have no single legislative or technological solution. We're going to need different points of intervention that regulate different kinds of players in the technology ecosystem, as well as people who use technology, if we're going to effectively deal with the problem.

I also think that it's important to understand that we're never going to achieve a 100% solution to any of these problems. The problem of sexual exploitation of children or of the circulation of unlawful intimate imagery certainly predates the Internet. It will probably postdate the Internet in terms of what technology comes next, so what we should be looking for are solutions that are significantly effective in reducing the prevalence of this content and the harm it causes.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

My next question is addressed to Ms. Laidlaw.

Bill C-63 was developed to ensure compliance with all existing privacy laws and global best practices. Do you have any concerns related to the privacy implications of Bill S-210? Also, how do we ensure privacy is upheld in the development of online safety regulations?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Would you like to redirect that, Patricia? Ms. Laidlaw is no longer here.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Sure.

Can I address that same question to Mr. Krishnamurthy?

[Vivek Krishnamurthy]

Yes, I would be happy to answer. I would not speak for Ms. Laidlaw; however, we are friends and colleagues.

Specifically on age verification technology as it is currently designed, there are a couple of problems. The first is that almost every age verification method that is currently used requires you to divulge personal details, which means that your Internet activities are being tracked by somebody in some way. There are some computational efforts to reduce that, but it is a first-order problem with the technology.

Another set of approaches uses biometrics—for example, the shape of your face or certain characteristics—to try to determine what your age is, and those approaches suffer from significant inaccuracies. Also, they collect a very sensitive form of information—or at least they process it—which is biometric data.

There is research under way that seeks to implement age verification in a way that causes fewer privacy harms, but as far as I know, we're not there yet on developing that technology.

Again, this is an area where there's a lot of innovation spurred by legislation, but I would caution against this technology.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

The time is up, Ms. Lattanzio. Thank you very much.

I now go to Mr. Champoux.

You have six minutes, please, Martin.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I, too, would like to sincerely thank the witnesses for their patience. Sometimes, the vagaries of Parliament mean that we have short waiting periods, such as the one we experienced today because of the votes.

I would like to speak to Lieutenant Vachon.

In your opening remarks, you talked about a 295% increase in reports since 2019. That's a dizzying number.

Please reassure me. Is there a part of this increase that, without being called positive, could be due to the awareness that has been raised and that has led people to decide to report someone or take legal action? I'd like for some of that dramatic increase to be a result of the good work you've done.

[Marc-Antoine Vachon]

You're right to say that. We've heard that a number of times today. Technologies are constantly improving. They are also improving in terms of searching for this type of image on servers.

We're seeing U.S. electronic service providers, big players like Facebook and Google, reporting more images. We believe it has to do with the fact that their detection methods are better than they used to be. The media are also constantly insisting that complaints must be filed. People are being encouraged to go to police stations, to refer to Cybertip for reporting. That kind of increase is also reflected among those businesses, which are partners.

Greater ease of access to the Internet will definitely lead to an increase in the number of reports. There are more and more Internet users around the world, including in Quebec. I don't know of a single home where people don't have access to the Internet. This is certainly reflected in the number of users who consume this type of material, but also in the tools that make it possible to detect it and send these reports to police stations.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

So there is a lot of awareness raising and education that we need to do as parents, but also as a society and as legislators.

Since we're talking about legislation, I can't help but mention Bill C-63, which was recently introduced and which I hope will be considered as quickly as possible.

Have you had a chance to look at it? If so, what are your impressions of this bill, which may be intended to help you do your job?

[Marc-Antoine Vachon]

I think it's a very good start. The solutions will never be perfect, as the technology is advancing so quickly, but I think it's a good idea. That bill proposes a good solution. I believe that people who host computer data should be required to know what they are hosting.

We can sort of see the principle. To draw an analogy, I'll take the example of a convenience store. A convenience store is not allowed to sell firearms. Why would a web host be allowed to host illegal data? There are bots and software that can make it easier for them to detect this type of material.

Although I haven't read it in its entirety, I believe the bill seeks to require individuals to be aware of the content they host and to report it to the authorities. It's necessary.

That said, the Canadian Centre for Child Protection also provides free tools to enable these companies to use the centre's bots, as well as files categorized by police officers, and to prevent someone from putting files that are already known as child pornography on a data server.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

In an interview, you yourself said that consumption implies production.

Of course, there must be more oversight of those who host this content. They need to be accountable. We agree on that. The legislation must be tough enough and serious enough to discourage them from continuing. Without that fear, it's like giving them a slap on the wrist. They get through it, and then they carry on.

I would also say that it's a question of supply and demand. There is a demand. There is a clientele that is looking for this content.

Are we being strict enough and effective enough when we catch predators or consumers of this type of pornography, especially child pornography? Are we harsh enough and a deterrent for these people?

What can we do to take away their desire to search for this type of content, regardless of where it is?

[Marc-Antoine Vachon]

You're right to mention that. It's the principle of consumption. It's the law of supply and demand. If there is consumption, there is definitely production. We see it in all walks of life, both in criminal circles and in legal businesses.

There are minimum sentences for child pornography. I think that judges also have a lot of leeway in these situations. We see sentences being imposed based on the crime committed and the evidence from the police investigation.

What we often see in our searches is a trivialization of these images by both the families and the suspects, in the sense that they will claim that they did not touch a child. Why are they being arrested when, in their opinion, it is just an image? Why would they go to jail, why would they go before a judge, and why would they have a criminal record?

I think that's what we really need to work on. We have to work to change the mentality of the accused and the families. We often see families protecting the arrested person by claiming that they have not abused anyone. Consuming that image, however, is feeding the person who produces it. For there to be a consumer, there has to be a producer.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you very much, Lieutenant Vachon.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you very much.

I now go to Ms. Ashton. Niki, you have six minutes.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We know that kids in this country are struggling, and we need to do more. Families are crying out for solutions to keep their kids safe. As legislators, we need to be solution-focused to give kids, parents and educators the tools they need to combat online harms. We owe it to the young people of this country to do everything we can to keep them safe. We need to keep kids safe, and we need to get it right when it comes to privacy rights. We understand the importance of safeguarding individuals' sensitive information, especially in the digital age, when privacy breaches can have severe and—as we've heard from some of our witnesses—sometimes fatal consequences.

I'd like to direct my questions to Ms. Todd.

I want to thank you very much for appearing before this committee. You are a leading voice in this country. I want to thank you for sharing what is obviously a very heartbreaking experience—what your daughter went through and what your family has gone through—and for the way you've been able to move that into advocacy and social change.

I also remember that a number of years ago, a former colleague, MP Dany Morin, was working to develop a national bullying prevention strategy. I remember that he consulted with you on it. I recognize this and I want to acknowledge that your leadership work has been ongoing for so many years. That was important work. The work you continue to do is important. I am disappointed that the national bullying prevention strategy was voted down by the Conservative government in power at the time. It's clear we need to do better.

I also want to acknowledge that your daughter Amanda's story affected Canadians from coast to coast to coast. It's tragic, and it highlights to what extent we as legislators have failed to keep young Canadian people safe. We have to do much more in that regard. Amanda's story, which you bravely retold—since no other kid or parent should have to go through what you went through—makes clear how much more work needs to be done. It shouldn't take 12 years following Amanda's bullycide for extradition and a court case. It shouldn't have been the RCMP ignoring a credible tip a year before her death, saying there's nothing that could be done.

In your mind, looking ahead, what should be done so that cases like what your daughter and others went through would be taken seriously going forward?

[Carol Todd]

Thank you for your kind words.

I'm going to be frank. Amanda died in 2012. We are now in 2024. We're almost at 12 years. I've stood up, I've used my voice and I've been an advocate. I've watched what happened in her life and I've talked to many people and organizations around the world. What you do as politicians and legislators is wonderful, but you put up so many roadblocks.

I'm going to be frank, and I'm not saying this to anyone specifically; I'm saying this generally.

So many roadblocks get put up by one political party versus another political party. I have sat on six standing committees since 2012, on technology-facilitated violence, on gender-based violence, on exploitation against children and young people, on other ones on intimate images, and now this one.

I could copy and paste facts that I talk about: more funding, more legislation, more education, more awareness. Standing committees then come out with a report. We see those reports, but we never know what happens at the end: Do these things really happen? Is there more funding in law enforcement for training officers and for their knowledge? Are there changes in legislation?

Right now we are looking at Bill C-63. I read the news and I look at the points of view. I have someone from the justice minister's office contacting me regularly, because I understand that second reading came up on Bill C-63 last Friday.

Then you go back to the comments, and all it amounts to is infighting and arguing. Will this bill be passed? Other parties say no, it shouldn't be passed.

We are harming Canadians, our children and our citizens when things don't get passed. If you look and do your research, you see that other countries have passed legislation similar to Bill C-63. Australia is already in its third or fourth revision of what they passed years ago. I was in Australia last year and I met the e-commissioner. I met law enforcement. I was a keynote speaker at one of their major exploitation conferences. I felt sad because Canada was represented by two officers in Ontario. Canada was so far behind.

We are a first world country, and our Canadians deserve to be protected. We need to make sure that everyone works on the legislation and on details. It's not just about passing laws: There are different silos. There's the education. There are the kids. There's the community. We all need to get involved. It's not about putting someone in jail because of.... It's about finding solutions that work. As a country, we are not finding those solutions that work right now. We aren't going to find every other predator in the world. Globally today, 750,000 predators are online looking for our children.

In my case, Amanda's predator came from the Netherlands. It's not just about one country, because the Internet is invisible fibres. We know that Nigeria has exploitation—

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Niki. Your time is now over.

Now I'll go to a second round. This round is going to take a total of 25 minutes. If we are really rigid about timing, we could do five minutes, five minutes, two and a half minutes, two and a half minutes, five minutes, and five minutes, or we could shorten that if you like.

If we're going to go with the second round, Mrs. Thomas, you have five minutes.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Ms. Selby, I'm going to come back to you for a moment.

With regard to where we left off in terms of platforms, are there legislative changes that could be made in order to better protect children on platforms?

[Dr. Jocelyn Monsma Selby]

We need to get back to a type of protection that will be fit for purpose for the majority of individuals online, including children. There's always a perfect storm of events with individuals that allows them to be vulnerable to whatever they're looking at.

In terms of the tools you pick, if you do a device-level control that has an age assurance technology, then you'll get the majority of platforms. If you just cherry-pick who you're going to go after, such as a porn site or someone like TikTok, what are you doing? If you have a device-level control, anybody who buys that device in Canada has to implement an age assurance technology that you approve as a government. All these tools get vetted. Then you pick what you think, at that moment in time, is the one that should be used.

You can do that, but you need to have a tool at the device level that hits all of these sites. There are so many different ones. People are finding explicit sexual content all over the place on the regular Internet, not on the dark web. They're finding it on the regular Internet.

I hope that answer helps.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

I think it does, to some extent. I guess I'm just curious, though; it feels like the responsibility of platforms is somewhat being dismissed by your answer. It's not that you're intending to do that, but I just want to tap into this a little bit further.

Should platforms not have a duty of care when it comes to—

[Dr. Jocelyn Monsma Selby]

How do you regulate platforms? Are you going to pick one and not another?