Information & Ethics Committee on March 8th, 2021

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We haven't had any correspondence from him since we delivered the questions, so we don't know. I guess we will find out. It was startling, I think, for all committee members to read the letter generally but also to see the letter speak on behalf of a whole host of folks who weren't named in it. Obviously, I've heard it's concerning to committee members, so we will be mindful of that and inform you immediately if we hear anything back in terms of their intention to respond to those letters, as they agreed to.

We do have a budget that has been prepared by the clerk for the Pornhub study. I think that budget has been circulated. It's in the amount of—

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

My understanding is that we voted unanimously in favour of Mr. Angus's amendment, and that is good, but we have not voted on the main motion. I think that we should adopt it first.

I am announcing right away that I will propose that the committee consider the three short motions moved by my colleague Ms. Gaudreau.

That said, I think we should first vote on the main motion as amended.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I did ask members if there was anybody who opposed it, and I did rule that in fact it had been accepted by committee members. Not having seen any opposition to that, I said that it was unanimously passed, so that is completed.

I do have a couple of people on my speaking list. I'd like to get this budget passed by committee members before I begin that. I know that Mr. Angus wants to get on the speaking list right away as well.

In terms of the budget, have members been able to review that? I don't think there have been any concerns raised with regard to what is a modest budget for that particular study.

Not seeing anybody who wants to speak on that, I will ask if there is anybody who opposes that budget for that particular study.

Not seeing that, I will accept that as having been passed by committee unanimously.

Mr. Angus, we'll turn to you.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I brought forward two motions. One is a long-standing motion that we have agreed to in the past on facial recognition technology, which I would like to bring forward. We were waiting for the privacy law bill, but if it's not coming up, I would like to get the facial recognition technology study under way in the meantime.

My motion that I would like to bring first, out of the two motions, is following up on the issue of the questions that have arisen out of the Pornhub/MindGeek study. I think we have all learned a great deal. I think we are in a position and somewhat ready to start working on a report, but to me there's one fundamental outstanding question. We seem to have very strong laws in this country regarding non-consensual images and issues of child porn. We've looked at the laws. They're strong, but we don't see any enforcement mechanisms, so my motion is:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3) and in light of the testimony from representatives of the RCMP at committee on February 22, 2021, and the apparent lack of enforcement of Canadian laws relating to issues of possession and dissemination of child pornography as well as the posting of non-consensual sexual acts on Canadian Internet Services, that the committee immediately call Public Safety Minister Bill Blair to appear and explain his government's position on the enforcement of Canadian laws relating to the non-consensual abuse of both children and adults on online platforms.

I bring forward this motion because I think we can't really make recommendations to Parliament until we know what it is politically or higher above the RCMP such that the laws that Parliament has adopted are not actually been enacted, so I'd like to ask Mr. Bill Blair to come and say how they perceive it. Then we can prepare our report to Parliament.

I would put that motion on the floor for debate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Okay. We do have a motion before us. We'll get a speaking list on that.

I know that Mr. Fortin also would like to move a motion.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Chair, before you heard from my colleague Mr. Angus, I had already announced that I wanted the committee to debate my colleague Ms. Gaudreau's three short motions. I don't want to undermine the importance of Mr. Angus's motion in any way. I think it is an important motion the committee should consider. However, these three short motions have already been discussed at the Board of Internal Economy and among party whips. I think this can be resolved in five minutes. I would not want it to be postponed indefinitely.

Unless I am mistaken, I think I was the only one with a raised hand when I announced it, so I don't understand why you don't want to discuss it now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

No. I do apologize. I did have Mr. Angus on my speaking list. He doesn't show up on the Zoom speaking list because he is in person. Mr. Barrett and Mr. Angus have to inform the clerk or me if they want to be.

In this case, Mr. Angus was on the list before you, but we will get to you as soon as we can dispose of the motion that's currently before the committee.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Is there anybody who would like to speak to Mr. Angus's motion?

Yes, Mr. Barrett.

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

Thanks very much.

I'm supportive of Mr. Angus's motion and I think it's important that we have the opportunity for the minister to explain the government's position, but I would like to offer an amendment. It's small in the number of words, but I think it's large in terms of the impact it would have.

The amendment would be that, after “Bill Blair”, we add “and Justice Minister David Lametti”. It would read, “that the committee immediately call Public Safety Minister Bill Blair and Justice Minister David Lametti to appear and explain their government's position on the enforcement of Canadian laws relating to the non-consensual abuse of both children and adults on online platforms.”

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mr. Fergus.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to talk about the amendment proposed by Mr. Barrett. I support Mr. Angus's motion, but issues related to law enforcement by the police come under the Minister of Public Safety and not the Minister of Justice, as I see it. Perhaps the clerk could confirm this.

That is why I support Mr. Angus's motion without this amendment, as desirable as it may be. I know that Mr. Barrett proposed it in good faith, but this does not come under the Minister of Justice.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We are now debating the amendment.

We'll turn to Ms. Lattanzio, and then to Mr. Carrie.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My question is for Mr. Barrett. I would like to get a clarification on what my colleague Mr. Fergus just brought up.

What would he say is the justification behind the amendment to request that the Minister of Justice appear to discuss law enforcement?

I can understand inviting Minister Blair to appear, but I don't see how this amendment is justified, unless we want to discuss other topics and would not be limited to just the enforcement of our laws.

I would like my colleague to elaborate on this, so that I can make an informed decision.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mr. Carrie, we'll turn to you.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Oshawa, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Maybe I can help my Liberal friends.

There was a huge rejig in, I think it was, Bill C-75, where the Liberals passed a reform of the criminal justice system. One of the things in that bill was a change in regard to human trafficking, where in some instances instead of being a criminal offence, human trafficking was going to be moved into a summary conviction. For anybody who is not a legal person, that means the penalty could be two years minus a day and a $5,000 fine. As we heard quite regularly throughout the study we're talking about, human traffickers are extremely active in recruitment and abuse in regard to these images on the Internet.

I think it would be great to have Mr. Lametti—who made that change—in front of the committee to explain the [Technical difficulty—Editor]. Maybe instead of making this situation, let's just say, less common, perhaps we're seeing a greater incentive for these traffickers to be found guilty in Canada, where there is much less risk, than in the United States. A $5,000 fine could be seen as.... If one person is trafficked, we've heard numbers of $250,000 or $300,000 per year being made off one trafficked person. This would be just the cost of doing business.

Maybe this would be something that Mr. Lametti could explain to committee and maybe take a second look at.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

On my list, I have Mr. Angus and then Mr. Sorbara.

Mr. Angus, go ahead.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Thank you.

Well, to sort of work in between both my Liberal and Conservative colleagues, we are not studying human trafficking here. That was something we had to be very clear about in the beginning, because that's really the purview of Justice or the status of women. However, I do support calling the Minister of Justice, because I think it's pretty straightforward. The laws we have clearly have not been enacted. By asking the security minister to come, he could explain the overall culture in terms of how the laws are being interpreted. By having the justice minister come, he could explain whether or not the laws are sufficient.

I think this is an important conversation. I don't see that this is adversarial. I want to know: Do we need to come forward with changes to the law to make it actually applicable and enforceable, or is the law sufficient and it's a question of the police not doing that? I think by having the two of them there and staying focused on that, we could get straight answers. I don't think this has to be something that we debate.

I will certainly support the amendment of my colleague.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mr. Sorbara.

[Francesco Sorbara, Liberal, Vaughan—Woodbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, everyone. This is my first intervention this morning, so I would like to join in and say happy International Women's Day to all the wonderful women in our society.

In terms of the debate at hand and the issue with inviting Minister Lametti, I'm going to disagree, only because I think the human trafficking aspect is not relevant to the study at hand. Second, that is an issue that really pertains to the justice committee, for the reasons that are being given. It really pertains to the justice committee, not our committee and not this study.

I would like to see the head of the RCMP and the director of public prosecutions be called. I think those two individuals would be much more relevant than the justice minister. I don't want to say that people have gone offside, but in terms of the focus, in terms of why the existing laws on the books are or are not being used, and in terms of some of the clarification questions that I know many of my colleagues have, I would think that this would be an angle that would be more productive to go down in the time we are currently allotted.

Those are my humble thoughts, Chair. Thank you.

Again, good morning to everyone.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Colleagues, I don't have anybody else on the speaking order.

First, in terms of the amendment on the motion, I get the sense that there's some division with regard to this. I'll ask members to raise their hands either in support of the amendment....

Mrs. Shanahan, I see that your hand is raised. Is that to speak to the motion before we go to the vote?

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

While we're adding names to the motion, I'd like to propose a subamendment. I will move the subamendment that we add to the motion Brenda Lucki's name and the director of public prosecutions' name. That would be a subamendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Okay.

This is an amendment to the amendment. I guess we'll deal with that first.

Would anybody like to speak with regard to the subamendment?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Let's vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Let's vote. So, we'll first vote in terms of adding Ms. Lucki's name to the list.

All those in favour, please indicate by raising your hand—