Information & Ethics Committee on May 28th, 2021

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

Perfect.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Is there anybody that would like to speak to the amendment? I am seeing hands raised.

Mrs. Shanahan, you are next on the list, so we'll turn to you and then we'll go back to Mr. Angus.

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

On a point of order, could we get the complete text of the motion with the amendment circulated in both official languages, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Yes. I am getting hand gestures, indicating you're not the only one that was looking for that. We'll now suspend until such time—

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

They were friendly hand gestures, I would just note, Chair, for those following along here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Let's remember there is no such thing as anything friendly in this business. It's just an amendment or not an amendment. While we are friendly, sometimes we accept them more readily in this business in the Parliament of Canada, but they are only amendments.

We will suspend now until such time as that can be distributed in both official languages. Please watch your email.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We'll turn to Mrs. Shanahan for the next intervention.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

I would note that I, too, had a motion that I wanted to present. I understand that'll occur after this is dealt with. It concerns the order of the House regarding the nomination and the extension of the term of the Privacy Commissioner.

On this amendment, yes, of course, I'm in agreement because it follows on what I was attempting not very elegantly to do. I agree.

When we had our last panel of witnesses on this issue, we were becoming aware that there is what is seen and there is what is unseen. It's not for nothing that our study on MindGeek and Pornhub has really stirred up so much attention among ordinary Canadians and the media. The Internet space, the web and the dark web are a completely new area of study. These are things I certainly didn't have any knowledge of prior to the very recent revelations that we've had over the past few years about just who and what, as we far as we know, operates in this space. We don't know. This study is so critical. It's about the non-consensual use of images, and we need to get a fuller understanding.

This is really one of the first times that a parliamentary committee is attacking this area. Certainly that is what I was trying to do when I moved my motion during that meeting a month or so ago in that we should hear from more witnesses. I'd like to hear from Professor Lukings again. She certainly had a lot to say on this issue. Also, we may be able to find someone else, such as perhaps a retired RCMP officer who has worked in this area and can maybe speak much more freely about the kind of work that he or she had been seeing.

I really think that this is an area we need to more fully explore. We need to have as much information as possible before we are ready to do that report and put forward recommendations, which I think will be very welcomed by the Canadian public. I'm not saying that it'll be the last word on it—far from it—but I think it's going to be a very important step forward in opening a crack in this door, which clearly has been closed.

Of course, in addressing the issue of Pornhub, our intent was never to drive the illegal traffic to the dark web. That was never our intention. We need to understand what we are doing in this space and for that reason, I support the amendment. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

I'll just remind committee members that Ms. Lukings is not a professor, as I think that there may be some confusion. She is a law student, just for clarification.

We'll turn to Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you.

I think we can work this out. I do have to say, from that last meeting I felt very uncomfortable with this committee, because we said we were going to make a safe space for survivors and that didn't happen. I also feel that we have to be really careful about what it is and how we're talking about it because, for the survivors who came to us, we said that we would hear their stories with respect and that did not happen. I would also say some of those witnesses, to me, were gaslighting the survivors whom we heard from. We heard some really horrific testimony.

If I am to support Mr. Dong's amendment.... I've spoken with Ms. Lukings and I think she's really articulate on this and would be very helpful, but his amendment is about the dark web. If the witnesses we are going to agree on are experts on the dark web, I'm open to that.

Then I think we're going to have to close off this study, because time is ticking on this Parliament. If members want to use that as a way to bring in other witnesses who have other points of view, I've been on the phone with women dealing with Pornhub from Spain, Italy, Colombia, eastern Europe, Nigeria. They would love to speak to this committee, so if we're going to open it up, then I say to really open it up or we're going to actually get this thing finalized.

I think Mr. Guilbeault is important because we were told by Mr. Blair that the government is introducing legislation and Canadian Heritage is the lead, so we need to hear from them. If we heard from Mr. Guilbeault for an hour and we heard from experts on the dark net, including Ms. Lukings, and maybe, as Madam Shanahan said, someone from the RCMP who deals with this, or some expert, Project P perhaps, then I think we'd be in a situation where we could finalize this report.

If that's the agreement, I'm ready to put it to a vote at any time. I know Mrs. Shanahan has another motion that we have to vote on and time is ticking, so I'm ready to vote now, if that's the agreement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I have a couple of people left on the speaking list: Madam Gaudreau, Mr. Barrett and then I think Mrs. Shanahan got back on the list.

Madam Gaudreau.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will pick up where I left off.

Obviously, this is an issue we must be concerned about. I, too, walked away feeling uncomfortable after our meeting with the witnesses. It was obvious. I even said I was embarrassed. How are we supposed to finish our work after what we learned during the study we began on Pornhub? I am genuinely concerned, which is why I am very amenable to amending the motion. I know full well that we could spend a lot more time on Pornhub. We nevertheless have to work on the questions of conflict of interest and lobbying report, which will take at least two meetings. I keep thinking about the schedule.

What we are missing to get to the bottom of the matter and see the study through, as proposed in the motion and amendment, is time. I'm wondering whether we should go ahead with the meeting and put off finalizing the report again, or perhaps deal with the other reports to give us a bit of leeway to finalize this one.

That is why I am very uneasy about voting. I would support an amendment to put it off until we've finished with the other two reports. That way, we could get the work done. That does not mean I don't fully support broadening the study to cover elements we did not have in mind initially. We are well aware that it's important to go deeper.

Mr. Chair, I am not moving this formally, but the report on questions of conflict of interest and lobbying is clearly a priority. We should deal with that first, before the report on the Pornhub study or anything else. Now, I'm at a loss for arguments, perhaps because I don't have as much experience. We need to draft the report on the protection of privacy and reputation on online platforms such as Pornhub, but this adds the dark web to the mix. That involves the heritage committee and a number of others. Eventually, we have to finish the work.

If you are telling me that we absolutely need to have this meeting and that the analysts will be able to draft the final report for our review, I have no problem with that. Otherwise, I would move an amendment to have the committee examine the whole issue only once the other reports have been dealt with.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

Mr. Barrett.

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

Thanks, Chair.

I agree with Ms. Gaudreau's sentiment. I'm just curious as to whether there is an interest from the mover of the main motion or the amendment that we include language saying that this concludes the study and that the committee then provide instructions on drafting to the analysts.

I'm a little reluctant to move the amendment. I appreciate that this is how we make a decision on it. I'm a little reluctant to move it because my intention is to not prolong this discussion. I'm comfortable with the hour proposed from Mr. Angus, the proposed hour in the amendment. It all makes sense. My concern is that time is at a premium. The two meetings next week are committed.

There's been mention of a proposal from Mrs. Shanahan, which I can't speak to until it's been tabled at the committee, but I see some agreement on it.

I'm not sure of the best way to do this, Chair. Is the preference of the chair that I move the amendment or that I defer to the mover of the main motion, perhaps, and cede my time there? My intention is that we include language on concluding the study and providing instructions on drafting to the analysts, following the conclusion of that two-hour meeting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mr. Angus is next, but just before that, I want to inform members that the analysts have begun the work of putting together much of the report. Obviously we will have to confirm drafting instructions, but they have been diligent in terms of preparing those things that they are able to up until this point.

We need to be mindful, though, that they still will require time to complete the work. If we add additional witnesses, we will make it more difficult to get this completed before the end of the sitting.

Mr. Angus.

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

Thank you.

Time is absolutely important, because we have responsibilities. We have agreed to the meetings to finish the pandemic report and have it reported back to Parliament, I think by June 10, so that's there.

I think what my colleagues from the Liberals have brought forward is very reasonable. It allows us to at least say that we've touched all the key areas. There are many other areas, but obviously time has run out. This would allow us to finish the report.

I would trust my colleagues that we're agreed that these would be the final meetings and that we move on. I think we would all agree to doing so. We could put it in the motion as an amendment and vote on it, or we can just say that we all recognize that time is ticking and we have to get this done and that we get that meeting.

I'd say we vote on it now, because Mrs. Shanahan also has a motion, and we probably want to hear that one. If, then, we could just vote on this, I think we can agree that this would be the final meeting on this study. We'll wrap it up. We will have done a good opening round of work for the Canadian people, one that has raised a lot of questions.

We can't answer them all, but this is a good way to have opened up a study that people can look at. Maybe in a future Parliament or down the road, someone else will take it up from where we've started, but we need to finish it off.

I don't know that we need Mr. Barrett to put it in writing, I think we can just agree that this will be the end and that we move on from here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I see Madam Gaudreau, but just to remind members, we have to vote first on the amendment and then on the main motion.

Madam Gaudreau—

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

Mr. Chair, as Mr. Angus suggested, we need to specify in the motion that we will first do the work on the conflict of interest report. It would have to be over the next two meetings. We also need to specify that we would then do the remaining work to finalize the report on the protection of privacy and reputation on platforms such as Pornhub.

We need to put it on the schedule to make sure we actually do spend the next two meetings on the first report. We need to come to an agreement and put it in writing. Otherwise, we could have a filibuster.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mr. Angus, we'll turn to you.

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

My understanding is that we already have an agreement. We voted that we were going to have this report done and reported to Parliament by a date. It's thus already there. I think that is what we do next. We understand that we have to finish the pandemic report and that it will be reported to Parliament by the date indicated.

I say we get to the vote on this motion now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We'll move to a vote on the amendment.

Madam Clerk, I'm wondering if you'll run through the roll call for the purposes of the vote on the amendment. This is Mr. Dong's amendment. Then we'll vote on the main motion.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(Motion as amended agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Members, that's very helpful. I'm glad we can do that.

Of course, next week our meetings are scheduled to be the review of the report on pandemic spending. I think Mrs. Shanahan may have some suggestions for meetings in the week that follows.

Mrs. Shanahan.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I believe the notice of motion has already been circulated, but yes, I would like to move that, pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, May 27, 2021, and Standing Order 111.1(1), Daniel Therrien, nominee for the position of Privacy Commissioner of Canada, be invited to appear on Friday, June 4, 2021, for one hour in relation to his proposed appointment.

I believe that has been circulated already in both languages.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We'll turn to—

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

Chair, if I may, I have just a little point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Yes. Ms. Shanahan.