Information & Ethics Committee on April 12th, 2021

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

I'm happy to begin here.

Thank you, Mr. Sorbara, for your question. I certainly agree with all the sentiments you raised in your opening remarks and certainly with what Minister Blair has said.

My role in all of this as Minister of Justice is to ensure that Canada's criminal laws and other laws cover the domestic situation, and also to work with a number of different ministers, ministries and international partners to make sure things work, as a matter of international co-operation, and to make sure there aren't any legislative gaps in terms of Criminal Code protections or otherwise.

Without revealing the contents of what might be in a draft bill—you all know that I can't do that—I will say that the kinds of things that have been suggested involve making Internet service providers more responsible in terms of mandatory reporting. Are there ways in which the mandatory reporting act could be made more robust? Are there ways in which information could be protected in a more robust manner, for example, to help law enforcement agencies and prosecutors build and maintain evidentiary cases?

All of those things are the kinds of things that would fall under that category. Those are the kinds of things that have been raised in the public domain, so I won't go into any details about what might be in a proposed bill.

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

Minister Blair, do you have any follow-up?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Sorbara.

Again, I will be somewhat cautious in talking about legislation that may be coming forward, but from a public safety perspective and from what we have heard very clearly from law enforcement, there are essentially three principles. There would be a mandatory reporting of online harms, which could include the sexual exploitation of children. There would be steps taken to preserve evidence that would then be used by law enforcement in conducting investigations and ultimately by prosectors in criminal prosecutions that might arise from those online harms, and then [Technical difficulty—Editor] to end the victimization that its presence online represents.

From a law enforcement perspective, we've heard very clearly from the police right across the country about what they would like to see in legislation.

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

Thank you.

I wish to thank you as ministers and thank the Treasury Board Secretariat under Minister Duclos. In the 2021 main estimates, there was a substantial increase in funding, $6.3 million, for the national strategy to combat human trafficking, $4.4 million for the national cybersecurity strategy and $4.2 million for protecting children from sexual exploitation online. Budget 2019, I would say, announced funding of $4.4 million in 2019-20 and $8.7 million in 2021. It's great to see that.

I wish to pivot in a certain way. I've learned a lot in this study about platforms, and a lot of legalese language and information. I do agree that we have a robust system in place. I think it's section 162, in that realm, in those numbers, for child exploitation, but I do wish to flag something because I think it's important this morning.

I was able to read some papers, and we've received a lot of literature. A lot of briefs have been sent to us, more so than for almost any other study I've seen. One is from the Centre for Gender and Sexual Health Equity. It is called “Impacts of criminalization and punitive regulation of online sex work and pornography: the need for sex workers' voices”. Another one was an article written by a gentleman by the name of Justin Ling in Maclean's, “Governments have failed Canada's sex workers—and they're running out of patience”.

It all goes back to Bill C-36, which was brought in by the Conservatives. Our role as legislators and also in the Bedford case, which I've been reading up on, is to protect all Canadians, protect children from being exploited and allow Canadians to work safely in any sort of environment.

I've looked at other countries—New Zealand and Germany—and it seems to me that we need to make sure we don't drive work underground. Sex workers' voices need to be listened to, and we need to ensure that we are not harming Canadians rather than helping Canadians.

I wish to put to you a broad type of question, Minister Lametti, in terms of how sex work is regulated in Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I apologize, Mr. Sorbara, but the clock indicates that your time is up.

We'll turn to Madame Gaudreau now.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Good morning. Thank you for being with us and for your answers. It's rather clear and encouraging.

I'm going to come at this from a different angle. I want you to know that as a mother, I feel indignant, as do all the people in my riding, about what we're experiencing. We're caught in a situation [Technical difficulty—Editor] to change the laws or ensure they're properly enforced. So here's my question.

Given all the legislation we have and the increased amount of money we're investing to support victims and prevent them from being doubly victimized, how is it that some provinces are able to act even more quickly than we are to protect personal information? I'm thinking of the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, which we're still thinking about.

Privacy is a very broad issue, and that includes the dignity and the situations we are in right now. Three provinces, Alberta, British Columbia and Quebec, offered assistance. I know that our legislative system doesn't allow us to amend an act with a snap of our fingers, but in the digital age, how is it that we can't adapt the Broadcasting Act to today's realities?

Why aren't we working on the Privacy Act to achieve our objectives?

Although all international co-operation efforts seem to be in place, I'd like to hear what the honourable minister and his colleagues have to say about this.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Thank you for your question, Ms. Gaudreau.

Of course, there are a lot of aspects, legislation, ministers, departments and issues. Federally, there are two privacy acts: the Privacy Act, which affects federal institutions and is therefore under my jurisdiction, and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, which comes under the Minister of Innovation. As you noted, the House is currently considering a bill to modernize the PIPEDA.

Personally, I am investigating. I have been asked to provide my opinion and comment on the Privacy Act. Basically, the challenge is that technology is changing very quickly, and it's changing internationally. So we work with other countries. Obviously, the provinces also have a say through their own legislation. So we must constantly modernize the act, which creates challenges in its enforcement, as you've just seen in your study.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I understand that this is more the responsibility of the Minister of Justice. But why is it that, when we're able to make the essential changes to help victims, it never happens?

When I talk to these people, they are outraged. They say that governments always change, that bills always end up dying on the Order Paper and that, in the end, they're forgotten. There's assistance, but it doesn't last because an act that should already be in effect isn't being enforced. It would give additional support and relief for victims. Usually they're the ones who support this until the end, when they're already at the end of their rope.

So there's a big gap that we need to respond to as quickly as the Web is evolving, right?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Yes, we're responding. As Minister Blair pointed out, we're investing in this area, improving law enforcement and working with police forces abroad. So we have acted. I truly believe that no government in Canadian history has acted as quickly as we have.

It takes time and investment, and we continue to modernize the act all the time. So it's an ongoing challenge, but we're up to it and we're taking action.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Can you commit, for the sake of victims, to ensuring that they know not only the steps that need to be taken, but also the steps that are being taken? That would reassure them and show them that not only are they being considered, but that the act is being modernized so that it is better enforced.

There's a new victim every second, and victims have a hard time believing that we're there for them.

Are you able to commit to improving transparency and disclose steps that are being taken on behalf of these victims?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

It's true that we could always communicate more clearly what we're doing, especially for victims, as you pointed out. You're right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you so much, Minister.

Thank you, Madame Gaudreau.

We'll turn now to Mr. Angus for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Blair, Madam Lucki and Minister Lametti, for coming.

Feras Antoon, the CEO of MindGeek, lives in Montreal. In fact, he's building his dream home there, apparently quite the mansion, in a neighbourhood called Mafiaville. Now, I've been in Montreal a lot, although I don't know where Mafiaville is, but I mention it because he lives in Montreal, as does his partner, David Tassillo. They have a thousand employees in Montreal, and their office is at 7777 boulevard Décarie.

Mr. Lametti, in your opinion, would this qualify MindGeek as a Canadian company subject to Canadian law?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Again, I'm not going to comment on the actual details. There have been differing opinions. As Minister Blair and I have pointed out, it can depend on where servers are located and on where—

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

Okay, I'm sorry. I'm going to interrupt you. I'm reading the mandatory reporting act, and it doesn't mention the word “servers”. It mentions the word “service”.

I could help you. If you look it up in Wikipedia, the first line in Wikipedia, Mr. Lametti, says that MindGeek is a private Canadian company, but you don't know that it's a private Canadian company. You don't know.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Angus, as I have said, my role in all of this is to ensure that there are adequate Criminal Code protections and that they are in place. I outlined in my opening remarks, Mr. Angus, and I know you were listening carefully, that there are challenges with respect to companies that operate across the Internet—

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

I get that idea. I'm referring to this—

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

—and we refer all of these.... There are legal opinions that have been given, but it is a matter of enforcement—

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

Okay, I understand that. I only have a few minutes, Minister Lametti.

I'm referring to this briefing note of December 10, 2020, to the RCMP commissioner. It was done in response to a New York Times article, and it says, “In 2018, the RCMP met Mindgeek and raised the Mandatory Reporting Act (MRA). The company later indicated that the MRA did not apply as they are not a Canadian company.”

When you guys go to talk to companies that you think may have broken Canadian law, but they have other jurisdictions and they just tell you that they're not a Canadian company, is that good enough?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Look, I'm not going to answer on the specifics of whatever.... It's an ongoing investigation.

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

You are aware of the mandatory reporting act. Is that right? You have recommended—

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

I am very aware of the mandatory reporting act, and a company may also be required to report in another country, such as the United States, which then may be required to report back to Canadian law enforcement—

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

That's interesting because it doesn't say that under the mandatory reporting act, Mr. Lametti. It says under the mandatory reporting act that, if an allegation of child pornography is made, the service provider has to make that available to the appropriate Canadian law enforcement agency. However, you're saying they can interpret that to maybe apply to someone else, because they have never made a single mention. They have never reported anything to Canadian authorities.

I mention that because Rose Kalemba—

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

I think in matters of application, Mr. Angus—

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

I'm sorry. I'm not finished my question.