Information & Ethics Committee on April 19th, 2021

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for making time to appear at our committee today.

I'm not sure if the members are aware, but on Friday the Pulitzer Prize winning New York Times journalist, Nicholas Kristof, released another significant column on this story around online exploitation, which our committee had studied. It's an incredibly compelling article, and I hope that all of you have had a chance to read it.

He highlights a story of a Canadian survivor from Alberta—that's where I'm from—and I wanted to share her story.

Mr. Kristof writes:

Heather Legarde, a young woman in Alberta, felt the world crashing down on her last August. She had discovered that her ex-husband had posted intimate videos of her online, she told me, and people around the world were gazing at her naked body.

“I’m all over the internet,” she told me sadly. “Not what I wanted to be famous for.”

Worst of all, in one video her former husband sexually assaulted her as she lay unconscious in their bed. Legarde has no recollection of the assault and no idea how the video was made. One clue: It was tagged “sleeping pills.”

Mr. Chair, how much time do I have?

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I will verify that. I do apologize.

You have plenty of time. I will verify, though, when we get the clerk.

Go ahead, Mr. Viersen.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

All right.

Over 200,000 people had watched the video of her being assaulted while she lay drugged and unconscious. On that day in August, mortified, dizzied by her discovery of the betrayal, Legarde prepared to tie a noose.

“I was standing in my garage, under a beam, holding onto a rope”, she recalled, but finally, she changed her mind. She said, “I said to myself, 'If this is your situation, he'll do it to someone else tomorrow.'” Legarde resolved her own story and fought back, so now it doesn't have to happen to other girls.

We've heard several stories like this from people who have come to this committee.

Nicholas Kristof points out that this isn't about pornography. This is about rape and sexual abuse. He's also heard from a Canadian student who said, “I have no problem with consensual adults making porn.” Her concern is that many people in the pornographic videos weren't consenting adults, like her. Kristof writes that after she turned 14, a man enticed her to engage in sexual play over Skype. He secretly recorded her. A clip, along with her full name, ended up on XVideos, the world's most-visited pornography site. Google searches helped direct people to this illegal footage of child sexual abuse. This Canadian student shared with Kristof how she begged XVideos to remove the clip. Instead, XVideos hosted two more copies so that hundreds of thousands of people could leer at her at the most mortifying moment in her life.

I also want to highlight another study that came out at the beginning of the month and that may be important to this committee's work. The study, published in The British Journal of Criminology, looked at the ways in which mainstream pornography positions sexual assault violence as normative sexual script. By analyzing videos and titles found in the landing sites of these three most popular pornography sites in the United Kingdom—XVideos, Pornhub and XHamster—the study drew the largest research sample on online pornographic content to date, over 130,000. It is unique in its focus on the content immediately advertised to the new user. The academics found that one in eight titles shown to a first-time user on the main page of the porn sites depicted sexual violence or non-consensual content.

Mr. Chair, we have heard from people from across the spectrum about how they have been targeted and exploited by companies such as Pornhub, and that is what this study is all about.

Kate was 15 years old. Her ex was 20. He was into making homemade videos and stuff, and he videotaped her. One day he said, “Let me show you something.” She tried to get the content taken off Pornhub. It took her years to get rid of that content.

Rosa was 16. She was drunk at a friend's party. She woke up and there were naked pictures of her on Pornhub, with her name and her phone number. She had endless calls and texts. She had to change her number.

Nicole was 14. She made a decision that changed her life. She was having a sexual FaceTime with someone she didn't know. “I didn't know anything about him, his name or his age or anything”, she said, “but I showed him areas of my body that were private. I didn't know it at the time but he was recording it and uploaded it to Pornhub. The name of the video was even 'Young Teen', but that wasn't enough for Pornhub to analyze it and take it down. No, years later, classmates of mine found out about me and the pornography that was shot of me as a child. I've had the police involved on multiple occasions and cannot get the videos taken down.”

This is a video of Rosella, who was raped when she was 14, yet the video is still up on Pornhub.

Kyra, at the age of 15, was coerced into making a film of a sexual act. The video had been uploaded, without her consent, to Pornhub. The uploader was also underage. No one confirmed anyone's age or consent. “I've been dealing with image issues, PTSD, sexual discomfort since the incident and into adulthood. This is my personal account, and I have heard similar stories from other women. I will never forgive Pornhub for allowing my abuse to be shared publicly. It caused me to relive my pain, year over year over year.”

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mr. Viersen, you are out of time. I do apologize but I'm going to have to interrupt.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

These are just some of the stories of those who have been victims of Pornhub, and that is what this study is about. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Ms. Lattanzio, we'll turn to you for the next six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First off, I want to thank the witnesses for taking the time, on such short notice, to be with us this morning. Do know that you are all very much welcome at this table. I feel bad, actually, that the two witnesses did not even get an opportunity, Mr. Chair, to respond to Mr. Viersen's intervention. I must tell you, right off the bat, that the information that we received this morning from the three eloquent speakers has been very much informative, and more work needs to be done. I feel pressed, Mr. Chair, that we need to hurry on and get on with asking the questions this morning, but there's just so much more to learn from these three witnesses.

I'll start with Ms. Clamen.

What are the biggest challenges currently facing sex workers in regard to the online platforms?

[Jennifer Clamen]

Thank you, Ms. Lattanzio, for your recognition that we actually said something today.

If you don't mind, I will start by saying that Mr. Viersen's intervention was the exact reason that we don't want to come to committees like this, but at the same time why we are compelled to. The discrediting is a very common tactic. We had three people come and present and the first thing that Mr. Viersen does is not ask a question of clarification or show any interest in anything we said, but completely discredit all of our testimony and presentation by heralding Nicholas Kristof as some god and also conflating all of the issues.

I do thank you, Mr. Viersen, for providing a really good example of the way conflation happens. It's telling really horrific stories of abuse and rape that Madam Legarde experienced—which is something that we've been fighting against as feminists and as people in the sex industry, for so long— and mixing that story with stories of people who are actually working in the industry. There are little lines here and there talking about how we're not sure who's consenting or not, then moving on to stories about 15-year-olds with their partners and weaving in and out of these tales and these testimonies in a way that suggests that everything is exploitation.

That's the exact reason why this committee unfortunately is in large part failing—with testimonies like Mr. Viersen's—to actually ask the right questions like, for example, those you're asking right now. What are the concerns of sex workers? Thank you for asking.

Some of the concerns of sex workers online right now are a lot of the repression that's happening. There's a huge level of fear. Sex workers are being kicked off online platforms. Credit card companies are scared because of the constant threat of more oppression from the threat of being accused of being child traffickers when there is no evidence to support this. Credit card companies are backing out.

Point blank, it's harder for sex workers to earn money, particularly in the context of a pandemic where sex workers have received zero support from the government. Most were not able or did not want to access the CERB for fear of being outed as a sex worker. In that context, where some sex workers have moved online to make money, it's becoming increasingly hard to make money and sex workers are living increasingly in poverty.

That repression is making it really hard for people to work.

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

What changes do you think need to be made to be able to protect individuals from having their images posted without their consent? What recommendations would you have for this committee in that regard?

[Jennifer Clamen]

As far as we understand, laws exist already to prevent that. There are existing laws around privacy. There are existing laws around people who are under 18, whether or not that actually stands in line with our recommendations at the alliance. Existing laws can just be applied. Additional repressive measures are not what we recommend.

That's all that I have to say, but if the committee is considering additional repressive measures, they need to sit down with sex workers to develop those.

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

I'm wondering if Ms. Lukings has an answer to that same question.

[Melissa Lukings]

I sure do.

First, I'd like to refer to what Mr. Viersen said. It sounded like he was actually describing parts of my life. I was once given temazepam, which knocks you right out, and videos were made of me, so I get it. I'm also seeing the other side.

The big issue with online things for sex workers right now is that websites are not acting under PIPEDA, which is the privacy law that we already have in Canada for organizations that engage in commercialized activities. Under PIPEDA, there are already fines that exist for companies, and under the new the digital charter implementation act, 2020, the new one that was proposed in December, there would actually be heightened fees.

That's not what the issue is, though. The issue is that by preventing online content that is hosted by safer websites, we're actually forcing people to move onto encrypted, anonymized platforms, which are on the dark web. The way to think of it, if I could make a metaphor, you're shooting an arrow into a dark room. That's the dark web. When we catch exploitation, trafficking, abuse or whatever on the Internet on the dark web, it's very much like shooting an arrow into a dark room. We can't trace it; we can't track it. We can only get instances of actions, so when there's a click or when an action happens, we can sometimes see that.

It really is like shooting an arrow into a dark room. What we're doing right now is we're forcing people, who are consensually engaging in sexual activities commercially, to move off the surface web. We can think of it like an iceberg, and I'll include it in my brief later. When we move off the surface web and into the dark web, that saturates the market on the dark web with consensual and exploitative material. If we were able to advertise consensual material, and have that hosted on surface web areas, then those times when you shoot the arrow into the room and it hits something, you're way more likely to actually get someone who's committing a crime, rather than wasting time, resources, legal capacity on trying to trace a person who's doing it consensually anyway.

I currently work online for a substantial amount of my work. What I feel the biggest issue is for sex workers is that these laws, and preventing people from advertising or having material hosted on these websites, are removing payment options like Visa, PayPal and Mastercard. People are then resorting to cryptocurrencies. Cryptocurrencies do not have a paper trail, because they're encrypted through a different router system. They go through one node, the entry node, then there are all these relay nodes. I can provide a diagram, and I'll also include that in my brief.

We're forcing people to use cryptocurrencies, which are decentralized, and do not have a paper trail. In this way, we're actually making it harder for us to intervene, and to allow people to gather evidence. If there is an issue where someone is being exploited, and they want to have something done about that, they can't have a paper trail.

To me, by forcing people onto encrypted, anonymized dark web platforms and forcing people to use cryptocurrency, we're essentially forcing people to hide it way more than was ever the case before.

That, to me, is the biggest concern, because right now, having Pornhub and its content available, we can actually see it. It's one thing to go on the Internet, and say, “Oh look, there's a video of me”. It's another thing to receive anonymized emails from the dark web about a video that you can't even see, because it's on the dark web. That is way worse; that is so much worse. By forcing people underground, that's the kind of scenario we're making happen.

I wanted to reply to both of you with regard to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We're going to turn to our next questioner, Ms. Gaudreau.

[Sandra Wesley]

Am I also able to answer that question?

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Unfortunately, our time is up for Ms. Lattanzio. Hopefully, we will have an opportunity during the next round of questions.

Ms. Gaudreau, please go ahead.

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

Good morning, ladies.

I'm going to give you some time, even though I only have a few minutes.

I think your testimony has been effective, but I would like us to go even further together. There are many interpretations, many images. I would like to shed some light on some things.

I am a new member of Parliament and, as my colleagues know, I am an entrepreneur. So I have a good grasp of the subject. In fact, I have done psychosocial interventions for many years and I come from a community background. My responsibility is a concern for living together and understanding our issues.

We have a problem right now. As parliamentarians, we owe it to ourselves to respect our system. The system we live in is not keeping pace with our issues at all, the information superhighway and the Internet.

Essentially, our committee wants to look at privacy. It is the small window to make sure that people's safety and dignity are assured, as Ms. Wesley mentioned, and that you don't have to worry about your work. I am saddened by all of this, unfortunately, but it affects you. That said, the results of our work may allow us to act with the Five Eyes, because this is a global problem.

At committees, we have to hear various statements and we don't necessarily know what will be discussed. However, this committee really has a connection to public safety.

Of course, we don't have control over what is released to the public or through the media. On the other hand, I remember very well the questions that I asked and the things that I disclosed. I have never, ever passed judgment. I would not allow myself to do so, because I think of my teenage daughters who could inadvertently experience a situation like yours. That's the part that I find unacceptable.

We can think about how to address the issue. However, when we have a legislative change to make, we obviously owe it to ourselves to talk to the people who have experienced the issue at hand. As much as we want to move quickly, our system is still very slow and it is not keeping up with the speed of technology, not to mention the current pandemic environment. I agree with you on that. But it really comes down to education. Just as it is important to learn about ourselves, both for you and for us, it is also important to learn how Parliament works.

On the other hand, I represent Quebec, and in Quebec, we are acting quickly; measures have already been implemented to consolidate everything. Right now, you are struggling with this situation, we are all caught up in it. We need to put measures in place while avoiding collateral damage to you.

We come from different fields. As a social psychologist by training, I would like to know, in a few seconds, if you understand the difference between our committee and other committees, like the Standing Committee on the Status of Women and the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security.

We want to protect the public and make sure that any initiative moves forward with everyone's consent, pursuant to the Privacy Act.

I would like to hear from you on this. You have 30 seconds each.

[Sandra Wesley]

I'll start.

We thought it was very strange that this committee, which is supposed to be talking about privacy and ethics, was looking at this. This stems from the New York Times article and a very ideological campaign that has nothing to do with it. So all kinds of issues are being mixed in together. If the committee were really interested in this topic, we would have liked to see the study talk about how to protect the privacy of sex workers and others who use the Internet for sexual purposes. That would probably make for a very different and much more interesting discussion.

I would also like to talk about another topic. As the mother of a teenage girl, this is an issue I think about from many angles. I think any parent instinctively sees things as huge and difficult for their child and thinks about the world today and how to protect the child from a million things. It's easy to blame pornography, the sex industry, or the pimp in the bushes who wants to kidnap the child. In fact, it's much more complex than that.

I think we need to start by recognizing that our youth, especially girls who are taken away from that reality by the things we say, are beings who engage in sexual behaviours, who make mistakes or who make bad decisions. We need to get out of this victim-aggressor dichotomy and dig a little deeper. This is a conversation that our movement has been trying to have for a very long time and is at the heart of our discussions. The space for that conversation is not—

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

Do you feel heard despite the fact that we had to focus on the consent aspect? It's not for lack of interest.

[Sandra Wesley]

There is one thing to remember: the reason we are here today, the origin of this whole debate, is the desire of some people to eradicate the whole pornography industry, sex education, the rights of gay people, and the rights of trans people. It is the efforts of these people that have caused this committee to take up this issue. Until the history of extreme hate against us is recognized, it will be difficult to move forward.

That is why we find ourselves in this situation. We have to respond and react to the hatred towards us instead of bringing our concerns and contributing to the debate as experts. We are always defending ourselves, which is why it is difficult.

As long as the debates start from this point of view and the criminal justice system has the goal of eradicating us, it is difficult to talk about safety. This premise of wanting to eradicate sex work and pornography implies that it is not worth trying to make it safer. It is not worth trying to do anything to improve working conditions or to stop certain forms of exploitation or non-consensual activities. Yet we must choose.

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

I understand.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

We'll now turn to Mr. Angus for the next round of questions.

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

Thank you for coming to our committee today, Ms. Clamen.

I want to follow up on a comment I thought I heard you say. I'm not sure. Did you say that you thought the existing laws we have should just be applied?

[Jennifer Clamen]

I was speaking specifically about the way that the laws around underage sexual activity—

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

Exactly.

[Jennifer Clamen]

But I just want to specify that I am no expert in the laws around Internet technology. I was speaking specifically about the way we view youth sexuality. It's problematic. I also mentioned that as well.