Canadian Heritage Committee on Feb. 14th, 2022

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

If I may, Madam Chair, I'd like to speak.

Mr. Ménard, I want to know if the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage can examine legal frameworks. I would like to know if this is one of the mandates that the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage can give itself. Can we do that, or is that a matter that falls exclusively under the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights?

[Marion Ménard]

You know, the mandate of the Department of Canadian Heritage is very broad. Based on my 20 years of experience, I would say that just about anything can be covered by this act. Having said that, I would ask the clerk if she would like to add anything to that.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Aimée Belmore]

Thank you very much, Marion.

I would say that it is up to the chair to determine admissibility as far as legislative frameworks are concerned. If the committee chooses to study it, then it certainly is something they could study. The harms are mentioned in the mandate letter of the minister of the Department of Canadian Heritage.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you, Clerk.

Ms. Hepfner.

[Lisa Hepfner, Liberal, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you, very much, Madam Chair.

I want to be clear on exactly what we are hoping to study with this motion. Maybe Mrs. Thomas can elaborate a little bit more.

I wasn't a part of this committee previously, but I do know there was a study that seems to be similar in intention. I want to make sure that we don't redo work the committee has already done.

There was the study on the protection of privacy and reputation on platforms such as Pornhub, which I believe this committee studied in detail and made recommendations for. That's still pending.

I'm just looking for clarity, to make sure that we're not covering ground the committee has already covered.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Mrs. Thomas.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you, Chair. I have a couple of comments.

Mr. Champoux, I would gladly accept a friendly amendment with regard to the French version. There certainly might be a misinterpretation there, so I'd be happy to amend that.

In terms of the overall motion, the goal here is to look at the harm that is caused to those individuals who are underage and are having their photos or videos uploaded online, which fits directly within the mandate letter of the Minister of Canadian Heritage. The motion that you are referring to, I believe, Ms. Hepfner, is one that was studied at the Ethics committee. It was a very short study and it focused on the privacy issue. It didn't focus so much on the harms; it focused on privacy.

This one would focus specifically on the online harms that are caused to these individuals who have their images or videos uploaded and made available to the public. That being the focus, it does directly fit within the mandate letter of the minister for heritage.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Martin.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I'm going to take advantage of the offer to propose a friendly amendment to replace the word “méfaits” with the word “torts,” which I think is much more in keeping with the definition we want to give in the original version.

I raise another point for Ms. Thomas, who suggests that we hold a minimum of four meetings on this topic. I don't doubt that we can spend a lot of meetings studying this, but I think, really, that if we want to have time in the parliamentary session to slip this study in, I would suggest to Ms. Thomas that we ask for a minimum of two meetings. If we find that we need more, we could make adjustments. It seems to me that with two meetings, we would have a better chance of getting this study on the committee's agenda during this session.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Will you answer that question, please, Ms. Thomas with regard to the proposal by Monsieur Champoux.

I actually didn't quite hear your proposal, Mr. Champoux. Was it to change the French version of “harms”? What would you propose that it say?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I propose to replace the word “méfaits” with the word “torts.” I also propose to replace “a minimum of four meetings” with “a minimum of two meetings.”

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

All right.

Ms. Barron, did you have your hand up before?

I do have an amendment that we may want to vote on quickly. We don't have a lot of time left.

But go ahead, Ms. Barron.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

I will speak quickly. I appreciate being here and coming in to cover for my colleague when this important motion is coming forward. Thank you to Ms. Thomas.

If you would entertain the idea, Ms. Thomas, and through the chair, of course, I wanted to propose a friendly amendment to the motion. It would specifically add a piece of information that the motion propose that the Minister of Heritage and his department be invited to testify to explain the government's delay enforcing online platforms to monitor and remove illegal content.

I want to put this forward as a possible friendly amendment to add a little more specificity specify to the motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

All right.

Thank you, Ms. Barron. That would be a subamendment. We'll have to deal first with Martin's amendment. I don't know if the clerk can read it for me, please.

He's replacing the minimum number of meetings to hold from four meetings to two meetings. Moreover, he would change in the French version the word “harms”.

Could you read it, please, clerk?

[The Clerk]

Yes, Madam Chair.

The amendment of Mr. Champoux is to change in the French version the following.

“une étude sur les torts que cause aux enfants” and also further on in the motion, “qu'il examine les cadres juridiques visant à prévenir les torts causés par l'accès en ligne.”

Il s'agirait aussi de changer

He also suggests changing a minimum of four meetings” to “minimum of two meetings”.

Did you want me to read the entirety of the motion?

Is it okay if I do that in French?

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

It would change four meetings to two in the English version, though, and the French version.

[The Clerk]

Yes.

I'll just read it out:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study on the harms caused to children, women, and men by the ease of access to, and online viewing of, illegal sexually explicit material, and the extent to which online access to illegal sexually explicit material contributes to the prevalence of violence against women and girls and sex trafficking in Canada; that the committee hear from organizations, victims, and law enforcement experts; that the committee hold a minimum of two meetings to that end; that the committee consider legal frameworks to prevent the harm caused by online access to illegal sexually explicit material; and that the committee report its findings and recommendations to the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

All right. Now I will call the question.

Those in favour of the two amendments by Martin?

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Sorry, Madam Chair. I did have my hand up. I was hoping to speak to that amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

I am sorry. Because your hand had remained up since you first intervened, I didn't know if it was still up or down.

[Rachael Thomas, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Thank you.

Madam Chair, I understand Mr. Champoux's suggested amendment. We already do have a number of studies that are on the table and I know those studies obviously take precedence since we have agreed to do them before this one, but I don't see how taking this down to two meetings would make it any more doable. It's still in the queue after the rest that are being prioritized before this one. I do believe this is important subject matter, and to only hold two meetings just doesn't seem sufficient.

I'm very respectfully and very kindly asking for his support in keeping it as four.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Martin.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I agree with the spirit of the motion, Ms. Thomas. My concern is that when meetings become available and we add studies, for example, after a bill has been dealt with or because witnesses cannot come forward, we will postpone that study or choose another one because it requires four meetings.

I also think that it is an interesting study and that we should do it. By asking for a minimum of two meetings, we still give ourselves the option of holding four if we find that it is necessary. Believe me, I would be quite willing to add more if we consider that it is appropriate to do so.

This is what I propose to you, once again, very respectfully. I think that a minimum of two meetings gives us a better chance of being able to do this study in the current situation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Hedy Fry]

Thank you.

Anthony.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Briefly, in the hope of trying to achieve consensus on this quite quickly, Monsieur Champoux is absolutely right that the word “méfaits” should be replaced by “torts”, because “méfaits” is not the right match to the English version. I think Rachael noted that it is okay with her.

To accept this isn't much, because we're saying it would be a minimum of two meetings. We could go to four. We could go to whatever number, and hopefully we could agree and move on. I'll support the amendment.

I'd also just mention that I don't think the NDP amendment ties in to this motion, and I would ask Ms. Barron to maybe reconsider it.

In any case, thanks so much.