Justice Committee on May 16th, 2019

[Jennifer Klinck]

That's actually really difficult. If we're talking about privacy concerns, I think it's maybe more appropriate.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I just used privacy as an example. We could have heavy fines of the ISPs.

[Jennifer Klinck]

I think we need to be really careful about that, because it can create an incentive to censor. If there are really hefty fines and a need for fast action, that can be an incentive to just take things off, and it can lead to the removal of important speech, political speech—

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

What about report and take down, as we see in France? When there is a hate site, and it's confirmed that it is a hate site, it's reported and it's gone within 24 to 48 hours.

[Jennifer Klinck]

Again, I think that we just need to be careful about who's making the determination of what is hate, what speech is being removed and that these decisions aren't necessarily being outsourced to private corporations that have a profit motive to potentially censor any unpopular views. That can negatively impact the LGBTQ community.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Does Egale have a position on section 13?

[Jennifer Klinck]

Our view is that, certainly, a non-criminal administrative law remedy needs to be examined, but the circumstances are so different now and the forms of hate have changed. There's a need to really examine what's going to be most effective, based on an evidence-based policy. I'm not sure what the best approach will be, but I think there's room for that.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you.

I'm going to stop you there.

Ricki, you mentioned the “report and take down” model. Why do you like that model, and how do you think it could work?

[Ricki Justice]

I think it can work when there's a very clear threat that needs to be addressed urgently. I agree with some of what Jennifer said, though. Who is going to do the policing? That's a big job. Right now, social media platforms use algorithms, and this is a very human-dimension thing. There would be major resources required to make this happen, but we've seen that it can be done.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

If it is a criminal offence, we have police that are responsible for enforcing the Criminal Code. If we provide the resources, they should be able to do the work. Then it goes to the prosecution to make it work. That is the logical flow. It does require more resources, and it happens in other countries.

Morgane, in your situation that you talked about, would a “report and take down” model have helped you? What other mechanisms do you think we should be looking at as the federal government?

[Morgane Oger]

The crown prosecutor's office declined to prosecute on criminal charges for whatever reasons it had. Ontario prosecuted effectively the same flyer. The “report and take down” model doesn't work on platforms. It has to be done at the ISP level.

The amount of doxing that has been done on me is fantastic. They find out things that I've forgotten, but that's all done out of the basement of some lonely guy's house in Florida, apparently.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

It's a global issue. We need to coordinate.

[Morgane Oger]

Yes, it's someone's private little server somewhere, so it has to be the ISP that does that.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you all very much for being here today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Ms. Ramsey.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Thank you all so much for being here today.

This panel is really critical, I think, as a diversity of voices, certainly in talking about how we tackle this in different ways.

Morgane, the fact that you were successful and referencing the case, I think, is important. Talking about what you're putting online for women is important, as well as the services you provide in Edmonton.

I thank you all for the work that you're doing. It's incredibly important. As the only woman politician currently sitting at the table, I certainly have experienced this. I've had my children threatened. I know what that feels like, and I know how that feels in your home.

First of all, you're all courageous—and Morgane, certainly you for being here and sharing your very personal story. I thank you for that because it's going to take the courage of people to stand up and fight this together, to battle it by exposing themselves more than they already have. I thank you for that. Your efforts are incredibly important on behalf of all Canadians, so I thank you for that today.

It really is shocking when you think about what you pointed out: that things are allowed online that are not allowed in print. If something was handed to us, we could challenge that. We have a way to do that. We know where to go. However, when it's online, things just seem to get lost. People attempt to report, and the reporting system is certainly something that we could study entirely on its own.

Ricki, you highlighted newcomers and immigrants who are nervous to report, LGBTQ people who are nervous to report and women who are nervous to report because then it puts the spotlight on them. We see the horror stories of what happens when people put themselves out there.

Morgane, you highlighted what your family has been through, which is unacceptable in our country.

First of all, I want to congratulate you on receiving the meritorious service medal in 2018 for your service to Canada on the matter of LGBTQ2+ rights. Thank you for that and, specifically, your transgender human rights work for sure.

I want to ask you all two questions—a little more about why you feel that the online publications are more harmful than the physical. What is the difference between the harms that people are experiencing online versus something that they would see in a publication? Second, how do you feel that limiting online hatred would help your work? I can imagine the work that you would all be able to do if you didn't have to focus so much of your efforts on combatting online hate.

Maybe I'll open it with Morgane because I started with her, and then we'll work down the panel.

[Morgane Oger]

Online hatred is more harmful because of the speed and the reach. I can get onto my computer and attack any one of you personally with lies, put it out there and then suddenly it's true. It's instant; it has worldwide reach.

I can spend $1,000 and get 500,000 people to see it by midnight tonight if I really want to. That's just how effective online publications are.

If I have 1,000 friends on Twitter and I get them to do it, that probably quadruples its exposure. Then somebody cuts and pastes it and sticks it somewhere else. It's really hard to cut and paste a book or an article, but it's really easy to cut and paste a little thing. You just take a screenshot and make your own article. The derivative articles come out really fast.

Information runs away on the victim very fast. It's really hard to get in front of it. Everybody who has been in politics understands that need to get ahead of it. When it's driven by hatred, the obsession is so strong to “get” that person that it seems they'll do anything to do it. Therefore, the publications just get put out there, with multiple copies and things like this. It's the speed and the reach that's the problem.

[Ricki Justice]

I agree with Morgane. I would just add that there's also a momentum built up with...when one person starts something, it helps other people feel entitled to also contribute to the conversation in a negative way and add things on, so misinformation gets even worse. As you said, the speed is just incredible. Also, it stays there. If you have a flyer, you crumple up the flyer and throw it away, but when it's online it's frozen there.

[Eleanor Fast]

I certainly agree with Morgane and Ricki. I don't know if Mayor Peckford has anything to add.

[Nancy Peckford]

For people in public life, it's the degree to which you can be individually targeted. It's why social media companies are doing better—with the Twitter mute function, for example. On Facebook, if you run a campaign page, you can actually hide someone's comment. They still believe it's there. They still believe their hate is out there in the world, but in fact it's been hidden. You have more control. I think it's the degree to which it's individually targeted and it lasts and you can't counter it effectively. Clearly, the viral effect is significant.

I'm EV's past executive director. I can't tell you how many calls I would field where this was among the top three questions: What will I do when—it's not even “if”—I am the target or my family is the target? It's all online. No one's thinking about a flyer in their community. People are wondering what do they do when they're the target.

It's a little bit better now, but barely. There was very little we could offer. Women have internalized this notion that if they're going to run for office and if they have intersectional identities that are also subject to being targeted or vilified, they expect that this is part of public life.

I think it's good to be realistic about public life. I don't think we ever want to say to women that this is all roses and they'll have a great time. It's incredibly satisfying and now that I'm serving in elected life I can say that.

We are always up against reframing politics and the political journey because of all of the crap. So much of it now dominates your online engagement, which is absolutely required to get elected. In my own experience, I actually don't think my electoral campaign would have been viable without online engagement. I had a huge reach. It is so incredibly powerful, but then the capacity for it to be turned against you is equally, if not more, powerful. That's the dance you're doing.

With better rigour and with better standards, at least we can say there's something to work with. The non-criminal administrative route to pursuing justice is also very helpful, I think.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Thank you very much. We're way over time.

[Nancy Peckford]

I'm so sorry. That was me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Anthony Housefather]

Don't worry.

Mr. Erskine-Smith.

[Nathaniel Erskine-Smith, Liberal, Beaches—East York, ON]

I want to start by asking Jennifer from Egale Canada a question. You had—rightly, I think—highlighted the importance of a balance between holding social media companies and platforms accountable, but also avoiding undue censorship.

I ordinarily sit on a different committee that has looked at these problems. This is one of the recommendations we've made. I want to see if you take issue with it. We recommended that “the Government of Canada enact legislation imposing a duty on social media platforms to remove manifestly illegal content in a timely fashion, including hate speech [and] harassment...or risk monetary sanctions commensurate with the dominance and significance of the social platform, and allowing for judicial oversight of takedown decisions and a right of appeal.”

Does that seem like a fair balance to you?

[Jennifer Klinck]

Certainly social media companies have shown that they can be quite effective in dealing with the most obviously prohibited content. That has been effective against terrorist content and stuff like that, so there is a role for that, but more needs to be done.