Evidence of meeting #31 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was workers.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Melissa Lukings  Juris Doctor Candidate, Faculty of Law, University of New Brunswick, As an Individual
Jennifer Clamen  National Coordinator, Canadian Alliance for Sex Work Law Reform
Sandra Wesley  Executive Director, Stella, l'amie de Maimie
Clerk of the Committee  Ms. Miriam Burke

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin

We'll turn to Mr. Carrie now for the second round of questions.

Mr. Carrie.

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here today.

Perhaps I can follow up on what Charlie was saying. We talk about the scope of the study and that we don't want to conflate.... We're looking at the protection of privacy and reputation on online platforms. That's what the study is about.

Ms. Lukings, you mentioned the challenge with the dark web. We've been talking about sex work. I think that's incredibly important and maybe that should be an entirely different study, but what I'd like to get at is the sharing of private images. I want to talk about non-consensual images on online platforms.

I am wondering if you have been following the committee. Did you see the testimony from some of the victims earlier on in this study?

12:05 p.m.

Juris Doctor Candidate, Faculty of Law, University of New Brunswick, As an Individual

Melissa Lukings

Yes. I've heard a lot of testimony from victims. I worked for a sexual assault centre for a while as well, so I'm right there with you.

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

I heard Ms. Wesley say that it's about protecting privacy.

You mentioned the dark web, which is extremely dangerous, and you mentioned some ideas that you had. I think everybody here realizes that government has a role in protecting victims, but maybe the debate would be on what that role is.

I am wondering if you could expand a little on what you were saying about having a larger onus on hosts and what that would look like, from your viewpoint.

12:05 p.m.

Juris Doctor Candidate, Faculty of Law, University of New Brunswick, As an Individual

Melissa Lukings

The current rules under PIPEDA assign a fine to companies that violate the provisions that are related to privacy. All businesses have to follow these rules and have a specific format for how they collect, use, handle, disclose, access and allow people to access their own information as held by a company and as used by a company.

When we do the digital charter implementation act, it wouldn't be far-fetched at all to increase the fine for online platforms without banning them entirely or making it impossible for them to operate. It's a harm reduction idea. It's a safer idea than forcing people onto the dark web, where we literally have our hands tied. We can't intervene or help at all. It's recognizing that with the digital charter implementation act, we have the opportunity to look to the future and say, all right, as much as we might like to say that it is not okay to do this to people, by banning things and by prohibiting them, we're forcing them underground. How did Prohibition work out?

We have this opportunity now to actually talk about it. What do we expect from social media? What do we expect from other platforms without putting the criminalization...? For me, this isn't about criminalization. It's about the rules for companies. Without criminalizing the actual people who are in the content, we can put the onus on the company to do user verification.

Think about the same types of things your bank might use. You have a PIN. Some online platforms will require you to submit your driver's licence. If someone who is a user uploads content that has not been made consensually, that can be flagged and be sent immediately to the moderator. I actually also own a website and run a website, so I know how this works. That can be flagged and sent to the website owner. They can then go and look up the user. You have their driver's licence. You can track them. It's perfect. It works really well—way better than the dark web.

By increasing the amount of controls and security that the company has to do, without regulating the actual people who are involved but putting the onus on the company, it reduces the criminalization of sex workers. It helps us to locate and assist people who are being exploited or who are having images uploaded non-consensually. It gives them more power, because when you flag the video, it immediately comes down.

We can do that. We have the technology to do all these things. We can do it automatically. Automation is a real thing.

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

As one of my colleagues said, as technology improves, we're trying to keep up to it.

12:10 p.m.

Juris Doctor Candidate, Faculty of Law, University of New Brunswick, As an Individual

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

It's almost impossible. I've done a lot of work on human trafficking. I think everybody is in agreement there. When you have a young person plead with this committee about a way in which we could work with regulators so that images could be taken down, anything you could send to the committee that would enlighten us would be greatly appreciated.

Talking about sex work is a whole other study.

12:10 p.m.

Juris Doctor Candidate, Faculty of Law, University of New Brunswick, As an Individual

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

Colin Carrie Conservative Oshawa, ON

We really want to focus on the sharing of private and non-consensual images on online platforms.

Thank you very much for your testimony.

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin

Thank you, Mr. Carrie. You're out of time.

Madam Shanahan, you have five minutes.

April 19th, 2021 / 12:10 p.m.

Liberal

Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC

Thank you very much, Chair.

I want to thank our witnesses for appearing before us today on such short notice. The presentations and the points that all of the witnesses have been making have shown us that this is a very complex subject and very nuanced; that there are other perspectives; and that we need to hear from more balanced witnesses. I move:

That in furtherance of the study of the protection of privacy and reputation on platforms such as Pornhub that the committee hear from further witnesses at its next scheduled meeting for a minimum of two hours.

12:10 p.m.

Juris Doctor Candidate, Faculty of Law, University of New Brunswick, As an Individual

Melissa Lukings

What kinds of witnesses?

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin

Madam Shanahan has moved a motion.

In terms of intent, did you want to move into a debate, Madam Shanahan, with regard to that motion?

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC

Yes, Chair.

12:10 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

A point of order.

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC

I can present that motion in writing—

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin

I'm recognizing the point of order from Mr. Angus.

12:10 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

We brought witnesses to testify and Madam Shanahan says thanks for coming: Now we're going to cut you off so that we can talk about witnesses who we don't know and who may come.

I think it's incredibly rude to the witnesses we have. I think Madam Shanahan shouldn't be interrupting their opportunity to speak to our committee by throwing this wrench at us.

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin

Madam Shanahan, I just want to provide some additional clarification. If, in fact, we move to a debate with regard to the motion, that would limit the ability for our witnesses to complete their rounds of questions.

Is that your intent, Madam Shanahan? I just want clarification on that.

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Brenda Shanahan Liberal Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC

I am moving the motion now for debate now.

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

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

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The member opposite, Ms. Shanahan, has moved a motion in the middle of committee testimony. Normally with a table drop, something needs to be dropped on the table, so before we continue the debate, I'd ask if you could suspend so that paper copies can be circulated in the room and digital copies can be circulated online in both official languages.

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin

That was my next move. I do believe that that's been the usual activity of the committee when there are surprise motions, so we will suspend our committee.

I do apologize—

12:15 p.m.

NDP

Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON

Sorry to the witnesses. I've never seen this. This is crazy.

12:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Chris Warkentin

I do apologize to the witnesses. I'm going to suspend the meeting.