Evidence of meeting #25 for Finance in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was vacancies.
A video is available from Parliament.
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
Are you referring to his response that this wouldn't make any sense?
Bloc
Jean-Denis Garon Bloc Mirabel, QC
I'm basically saying that people are losing their rights. For example, any Canadian citizen who receives a notice of expropriation has the right to be heard by the commissioner, except for the people affected by the Alto project.
The Minister of Transport, a lawyer just like you, told us that it doesn't make sense to suspend these sections for projects across Canada. However, this is being done for the Alto project.
I'm trying to understand why something that doesn't make sense from coast to coast to coast makes sense for the Alto project.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
First, I accept the Minister of Transport's explanation. I want to be mindful of the fact that this is a file that's outside of my portfolio and that I didn't come here intending to discuss today.
If you look at the mission of the government, not just on Alto but more broadly on some of the major projects, we've made a decision to have expedited processes to get things built that are in the national interest and that are major projects of a scale that we have not been able to build quickly in Canada for a significant period of time. We want to make sure that we do things as fairly as possible and that we behave reasonably through this process. However, we won't accept that we don't get to accomplish big things. We want to build this country, grow the economy and take on big projects that meet the moment Canada is living through at this moment in our history.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Thank you, Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Garon.
We continue now with Mr. Lawton for five minutes.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Thank you, Minister.
Bill C-15 gives federal cabinet ministers licence to exempt individuals or corporations from, basically, any federal law, except for the Criminal Code, for up to six years. Is that a power you want?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
I don't agree with your characterization. Were you asking whether I want to exempt people from the Criminal Code?
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
No. Do you want the power, as a minister, that Bill C-15 gives to all ministers to exempt individuals or corporations from federal laws, excepting the Criminal Code?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Are you talking about the regulatory sandbox? Okay. I think regulatory sandboxes are a a good idea and will allow Canada to catch up with most of the industrialized world, to ensure that we have the ability to keep pace with changes to technologies and to ensure that our industries don't fall behind in Canada.
What I see is not a blanket ability to say that some of the laws don't apply to some people. For a time-limited purpose, for a specific reason, we might be able to test a new technology that doesn't comply with existing laws because the laws were written at a time when the technology didn't exist. In circumstances such as those, it creates an opportunity for the innovation economy to create good-paying jobs in Canada by having new tech tested out, outside of the rubric that was imagined before the technology existed, so that we can actually bring new ideas and technology into the Canadian economy. The fact that this was rolled out in many industrialized nations, I think, is a sign that it's not the dire circumstance its critics would believe it to be.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Why not narrow in scope that authority? Instead, it's every federal statute, regulation and cabinet minister. It would give you the right to exempt someone from a statute under your file, even if it has nothing to do with innovation, technology and AI.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
It's an interesting question. My own sense is that there are some protections baked into the bill. Again, it's outside of my own portfolio area, but I'll do my best to answer your question.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
It applies to all cabinet ministers. That's why I'm asking you.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Sure. The fact that it has to be done in public, that it's for a limited period of time and that it has to be for an explicit purpose....
Oh, I'm talking too fast. I apologize, Madam Chair.
These facts give me some faith that there is public oversight of how those authorities will be used.
My response to you, Mr. Lawton, is that this is exactly the kind of thing committees such as this should dig into. To the extent that there are recommendations through witness testimony that the department or minister hears about or that members of the committee find to be compelling.... This is the forum where we put ideas on the table that can be adjusted through the parliamentary process. I'm a huge believer in the value of Parliament.
If this committee collectively thinks it can add value by better creating a regime around regulatory sandboxes, that's an appropriate function for parliamentarians to play.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
You mentioned to Mr. Fragiskatos the importance of bail reform to most parliamentarians elected, and I am grateful that your party has come around to this. Let me ask you, though, about priorities.
There was a case I came across this morning from Durham, where six men were charged with trying to buy sex from children. They were released on an undertaking. It was another one of those cases that most Canadians would look at and say, “Why are these people not behind bars?” We moved very quickly—when we were finally able to do it on the justice committee—to push Bill C-14 forward. Right now, we are still facing a question we asked your colleagues there.
Why can we not prioritize Bill C-16, which deals with intimate partner violence? Why has, at every stage, Bill C-9 been more of a priority than these issues, on which—by your own admission—there is far more consensus, such as bail and sentencing reform?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
The answer as to why one bill is put forward as a priority depends on what point in the cycle you're referring to.
The reason we introduced the combatting hate act—the first of three major crime bills going through the House right now—is that it was ready earliest. It is a far simpler bill in terms of what it seeks to do, compared with sweeping reforms on bail and sentencing, on gender-based violence or on protecting kids online and in the real world. Early in the fall sitting of Parliament, we moved forward most quickly with that particular bill.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
Simplicity does not mean it's unanimously supported. Why not move on issues where there is consensus and a far greater need when you have all parties ready and willing to do that?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
We don't only do things in government that have unanimous support. We do the things we campaigned on and that Canadians voted for, including the combatting hate act. Bail and sentencing reform is also very important. We were able to accelerate that.
Conservative
Andrew Lawton Conservative Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON
I have five seconds left, Minister.
I'd stipulate that you did not campaign on removing long-standing religious speech protections from the Criminal Code.
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Through consultation with concerned parties, we landed on a version of the bill that we think best serves their interests, and we continue those conversations today.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Karina Gould
Thank you, Minister.
Thank you, Mr. Lawton.
We will continue now with Mr. MacDonald for five minutes.
Liberal
Kent MacDonald Liberal Cardigan, PE
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Minister and officials.
Minister Fraser, you and I have spoken several times about sextortion since I was elected. I want to go over what Bill C-16 says.
We see that pillar two of Bill C-16 proposes significant amendments to strengthen Canada's response to child sexual exploitation both online and off-line. It would restore the mandatory minimum penalties and introduce new penalties related to sextortion and a new offence for recruiting youth under 18 into criminal activity. It would also strengthen the mandatory reporting and data preservation obligations of online service providers. Together, these measures, hopefully, would combat the evolving tactics of these bad actors.
Can you outline in more detail how Bill C-16 would prevent child exploitation, particularly in the digital environments we spoke about?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
Before I get to the specifics of your question on Bill C-16, I just want to drive this point home. It would be an enormous mistake for everyone of us sitting around this table to think that any one criminal law, or even the criminal law generally, is going to in and of itself solve the absolute scourge that is sexploitation and the abuse of children in the real world or in a digital environment.
We also need to put forward systemic solutions, including giving law enforcement the tools they need to crack down on this kind of behaviour, including for example the lawful access regime included in the strong borders act and the long-term investments that are going to help build healthier people.
We also need to send a very strong signal that there will be no tolerance for this kind of horrific exploitation of kids, which often has fatal consequences. If you have the chance to sit down with a parent who has lost a child who ended their life after being the subject of this kind of abuse, you can only begin to understand the impact these kinds of horrific crimes are having on families. We also need to realize that the criminal law has the potential not just to publicly denounce this kind of behaviour, but also to incarcerate people who pose a public safety threat.
I'll draw your attention to a number of different elements in Bill C-16 regarding the specific question you've asked.
One is expanding crimes that involve the distribution of child sexual exploitation and abuse material to also include the threatened distribution of that material. We know through lessons that have been learned—again, sometimes through fatal consequences—that the impact of the threatened distribution of these kinds of images can lead to extraordinary consequences, in addition to the abuse of the material itself.
We also are expanding the definition of child luring to capture sextortion more explicitly. We're changing the law to ensure that people who take part in child sex tourism, Canadian citizens or permanent residents who may commit a crime abroad, will have to face consequences at home through the extraterritorial application of Canada's Criminal Code in those circumstances.
There are additional measures. You mentioned mandatory reporting for example. We've also made changes around invitation to sexual touching towards a minor. We are changing the defences and how they operate regarding a mistaken belief in age to make sure that if you're going to argue that, you actually took reasonable steps to ascertain a person's age to ensure that you weren't going to be engaging in criminal behaviour of a sexual nature involving a minor.
There are a number of other measures tied up in the bill that I think are important, but these are going to have a positive impact. We also need to look at the long-term investments both on the front line to support the cops who are going to bust up the rings that are responsible for the distribution of this horrific material or crimes committed against kids, and those long-term investments that are going to help build healthier people and healthier communities, which will help contribute to a safer country overall.
Liberal
Kent MacDonald Liberal Cardigan, PE
Earlier I spoke to the CRTC representative who was here and I asked him if they they have a role to play. Can you speak to that? What is the role of the CRTC to make these platform providers accountable?
Liberal
Sean Fraser Liberal Central Nova, NS
It's an excellent question and there are a number of different ministers who are engaged in the conversation around how we hold accountable the different actors in the system. For my part, my formal responsibilities as the Minister of Justice are engaged when we look at the Criminal Code reforms—not just the regulation of content that may be put online. This includes some of the measures that we have put in place. Mandatory reporting may be directly on point for what you have asked. We've also made changes to the criminalization of the use of AI deepfakes, for example.