Evidence of meeting #121 for Justice and Human Rights in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was consent.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Adam Chambers Conservative Simcoe North, ON
I believe Mr. Kurek has demonstrated an ability to bring it home and to bring it back to the subject at hand.
Liberal
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Thank you very much.
The good news, for Mr. Bittle's sake, is that I am keeping it absolutely on topic. While I am tempted to diverge from the subject at hand, I want to keep politics out of this as much as possible. For his benefit.... We'll see. I might have an opportunity to have a dialogue with him later in the House of Commons related to the SDTC issue.
Madam Chair, I've read some quotes, and I have a few more that I will get to, because the amount of support we have before us for the passing of Bill C-270 is almost overwhelming. Parliament has this clear opportunity to be able to say, “Okay, let's simply get the job done.”
What's interesting is that.... When we have some issues before us, there are the political sides, and that's fair. That's a very common thing. That's the nature of discourse. There are two sides to each debate. What is interesting, when it comes to the subject we have at hand, is that we have, I hope, a desire to see the right thing accomplished. When it comes down to it, it is not just talking about a bill as it stood after a second reading vote, when it received unanimous endorsement; it's actually seeing it get implemented in a way that works toward solving some of the significant challenges we face.
In this particular case, those who have been victims of this egregious exploitation.... Throw the book at those who deserve to have the book thrown at them and put them away, where they belong, for a very long time. Ensure that victims are given the support and the peace in knowing we've taken every action possible to ensure that there is the least likelihood possible that what happened to them will happen to anyone else.
Madam Chair, I would like to highlight a quote from the Soroptimist International Western Canada Region. They said:
To be protected when vulnerable is a human right as outlined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Soroptimist International recognises that for the pornography industry, women and girls have greater vulnerabilities, that include young age, financial insecurity, and exposure to sexualized violence. Social protections for youth must include protection from participation in pornographic materials and sexualized images being shared online. That is why Soroptimist International WCR (Western Canada Region) supports Bill C-270 and will continue to educate women and girls about their rights.
Madam Chair, we have before us.... As was highlighted, those who are disproportionately at risk of becoming victims.... To be able to send the signal very clearly to those actors in our country, and to the world, that Parliament—the supreme law-making authority of the land—is willing to take this issue seriously and do something about it is absolutely key.
To highlight, the stopping Internet sexual exploitation act will prohibit making or distributing pornographic material for a commercial purpose without verifying the age and getting the express, voluntary consent of the people depicted in it. It allows surety around that idea of consent and the ability to revoke consent and express consent, and doing so in a voluntary manner.
The number of endorsements this bill has is absolutely astounding. I've read through some of the quotes, but we have before us the Montreal Council of Women, the Colchester Sexual Assault Centre, DD, working to end sexual exploitation, VCASE, the Sexual Assault and Violence Intervention Services of Halton, The Salvation Army, the Ottawa Coalition to End Human Trafficking, CEASE UK, Parents Aware, the London Abused Women's Centre, Foundation RA, the Ally Global Foundation, the National Centre on Sexual Exploitation, the National Council of Women of Canada, the Hope Resource Centre Association and the Joy Smith Foundation. I know there are so many others.
I'm not sure if I'm close to the conclusion of my remarks—we'll have to see about that—but this is certainly something that is of the utmost importance in the subject matter before us.
I am going to share some survivor testimonies. To ensure that we protect victims, we need to highlight the devastating impacts of what happens when they are not protected. I'm going to share a few of these things. I won't let just the words of a politician from rural Alberta speak, but the words from individuals who have faced the devastating consequences of the gaps that exist in the legal, criminal, legislative and regulatory frameworks in our country. They are why, again, I'm highlighting the need to not delay this by 30 days, but to get this bill passed.
There's an individual who goes by the name Rachel, from Canada, who said, “It’s devastating. I mean, this is something that is going to haunt me for the rest of my life. I will always be someone's porn.” She also said, “I did not consent to this video being made, nor to it being uploaded to Pornhub.” I don't think, Madam Chair, that any commentary is needed on that, other than for Rachel, in her comments, to speak to why we need to get the job done.
I'll share testimony from the standing committee on ethics' study on Pornhub in 2021.
Serena said:
I stopped going to school. I got really depressed. I thought that once I stopped being in the public so much, once I stopped going to school, people would stop re-uploading it. But that didn't happen, because it had already been basically downloaded by people all across the world. It would always be uploaded, over and over and over again. No matter how many times I got it taken down, it would be right back up again.
Again, that was testimony in the standing committee on ethics' Pornhub study.
I would note, because I think this bears emphasizing, that when it comes to the first quote I shared from Rachel about when she was trying to get the video of which she was the subject removed, the company told her that removing the content was her responsibility. How absolutely and utterly disgusting is it that you have a bad corporate actor, because of a gap that exists in criminal law, being able to suggest that somehow the victim is responsible for dealing with the problem?
Victoria Galy said in testimony, again on the previous ethics study on this issue:
There were over eight million views just on Pornhub alone. To think of the amount of money that Pornhub has made off my trauma, date rape and sexual exploitation makes me sick to my stomach.... I too feel like Pornhub has become my human trafficker, and they have been relentless in doing so.
That was Victoria.
Again, in testimony that was heard, Rose Kalemba said:
Six videos of my rape at age fourteen, uploaded by one of my attackers, stayed on PornHub while they refused to remove them for over half a year. My cries to them where I begged them to take them down, stating that I was a minor and that it was not consensual, both of which were glaringly obvious, went unheard. Every single day I had to watch the view counts continue to rise while ads appeared along with the rape video. The number of views eventually exceeded 2 million.
A gap exists that needs to be filled.
Another witness had this to say. I would highlight, Madam Chair, that because of the sensitive content, there are a lot of people who don't want their names shared. I understand that, because this is a process of retraumatizing. This witness said, “It wasn't until August of 2020 that I discovered those private photos had been uploaded to porn sites.... Finding the photos led me to a video. I did not know the video existed. I found out...by watching it on Pornhub.... Whether I was asleep or drugged is impossible to know after the fact, but what is clear in the video is that I am not conscious and there is nothing to suggest consent.”
I spoke earlier about how the victimization doesn't end at the conclusion of what would be a horrific and life-changing moment. It continues and continues. To close the gaps that exist in regulation, Madam Chair, I think it is incumbent upon all of us as members to, again, get the job done. We shouldn't delay it by 30 days, but get the job done. The fact is that this is a well-studied subject. I'm glad that there's opportunity and testimony that exists on the stark reality of what happens when criminal law doesn't put behind bars those who need to be behind bars.
Further, there is another testimony that says, “I was 17 when videos of me...came to my knowledge, and I was only 15 in the videos they've been profiting from.... Every time they took it down, they also allowed more and more videos of me to be reuploaded.... I don't leave my house anymore. I stopped being able to work”.
I would highlight that the study that took place at the ethics committee was very specific to MindGeek, the company that owns Pornhub, and this is pretty specific to that. I would, Madam Chair, emphasize that this is one example, one of many bad actors in an industry that is built on exploitation.
There was a submission, again, to the ethics committee study on this where David.... I mentioned before that the victims of this are disproportionately women, but it's certainly not limited to women. I'll quote from one of the submissions to that committee study: “David at 15 years old, was given Rohypnol, known as 'having been roofied' or 'a date rape drug,' one evening after having snuck into a club.... After searching several gay porn sites, he found himself in several videos. David found it impossible to have his videos removed and he was a non-consenting minor”. It goes on to talk about how that led to a cycle of addiction, including “alcohol, cocaine and eventually methamphetamine to try and erase the memories” of the abuse he faced. It's hard. That's the sort of testimony that feels like a gut punch.
That's why I would suggest that, when it comes to the issue of the motion to see this extended, I highlighted some of the procedural stuff that exists for a reason, and the need to get this bill studied and reported back to the House so that we can have the best chance possible of it getting sorted.
I would hope that some of the testimony I've shared, as well as the organizations that have endorsed Bill C-270.... I've highlighted some of the specifics around why it matters, but then, specifically, I would simply conclude by saying this. There is a chance that MPs have to help get this bill across the finish line. I've shared quotes from organizations that are involved with victims, and then what is, I would suggest, some of the toughest stuff that I've read into the record in Parliament in terms of words from victims themselves.
As I wrap up my remarks here, I would suggest that this doesn't need to be extended. This needs to be passed and reported back to Parliament. I would therefore ask.... I believe I'm on the right procedural ground, so I can ask for UC, but we'll still have the floor after that. I would ask for unanimous consent that the committee pass this bill and report it back to the House at the earliest opportunity.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Madam Chair, I find it unfortunate that there would be that unwillingness to do so.
However, the next best way to get that accomplished is to allow it to be automatically reported back within the time frame that was originally discussed. Therefore, I move to adjourn.
Liberal
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
In fact, I'd like to get a clarification. Is this motion to adjourn the debate on the motion or to end the meeting?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
That's a good question.
Personally, I think the request is to end today's meeting.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
If I understand correctly, the motion will not end debate on the motion. Is that correct?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
The motion is a request to end the meeting. Consequently, debate on the motion will be adjourned. At the next meeting, we can resume it.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
If I understand correctly, the debate on the motion can therefore resume at the next meeting.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Yes, that's right.
It's only an adjournment.
It's not about closing the debate on the motion.
Would you like a recorded vote, or would you like a show of hands?
Okay, we'll have a recorded vote on the motion to adjourn the meeting.
(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
So we continue the debate on the motion.
We move to the second person on the list now.
Mr. Maloney, the floor is yours.
Liberal
James Maloney Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair. I will be much more brief than Mr. Kurek was.
A couple of things he said stood out for me. One of them was that this piece of legislation could be a shining light to the rest of the world, and yet here we are; he and his colleagues are preventing their colleague who brought this bill to the House.... He is being denied the opportunity to come here and have the light shine on him and celebrate what Mr. Kurek describes as his great achievement. It's absolutely shameful. I have never seen this in my nine years as an MP, where members of your own party have gone to such great lengths to prevent you from appearing to defend your own position. It's astonishing.
Another thing he said that stood out was when he was listing the categories of people who are not allowed to bring forward private members' bills, including cabinet members and parliamentary secretaries; he can now add Arnold Viersen to that list and take credit for that himself.
I just hope.... He used the word “delay” a number of times, in terms of delaying sending this bill back to the House. It's quite the opposite. We're extending the time so Mr. Viersen and his colleagues—my parliamentary colleagues across the way—have an opportunity to stand here and share in that pride with Mr. Viersen to celebrate this bill. They are denying it for reasons that they won't put on the record.
I'm going to ask the rest of you, as you're speaking today, to keep that in mind. Be fair to your own colleague. Give Mr. Viersen his day and his moment to come here and give evidence on his bill so we can celebrate the things that Mr. Kurek outlined earlier today.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Thank you, Mr. Maloney, for your brevity. I appreciate that.
I'm now going to MP Bittle, please.
November 7th, 2024 / 2:20 p.m.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I'll try to match Mr. Maloney's brevity.
This is genuinely surprising, because Mr. Viersen, I believe, was elected at the same time as me, in 2015, and throughout his whole career he has been a passionate advocate for protecting vulnerable people. I commend him for that, but when the rubber meets the road in terms of legislation, he is nowhere to be found, and members of his party are covering up for him.
It started with Bill S-210, which was a bill the Conservatives were in favour of. It was a digital ID bill that I didn't agree with, but I admired the intent to protect vulnerable people. Mr. Viersen, even though it was a Conservative bill, came to the committee I was on and filibustered it. Despite nine years of saying he wanted to stand up, he wouldn't let that bill be studied. He wouldn't let it have its day.
So, unlike Mr. Maloney, I have seen this before—Conservatives pretending to care about vulnerable people. I think most of them do. I imagine this is something from the leader's office saying, “Please, dear God, don't let Arnold come and testify to this bill.” What are they afraid of?
Mr. Kurek spoke for almost two and a half hours and didn't mention Mr. Viersen once; he did not mention his trust in his colleague. If they don't have trust in him, if they don't believe him and if they don't think he supports this legislation, maybe he should pass it on to someone else in the caucus, or, alternatively, let's get this studied. Why don't we bring him here this afternoon? Let's have a study; let's discuss it with him and do this important study.
The other surprising thing is that Mr. Kurek spent a great deal of his time talking about things that aren't even in this bill. It's amazing. It's not a long bill, so Mr. Kurek may be reading things that don't exist, or maybe he read the online harms bill, because a lot of the victim impact statements that he talked about—which are compelling and important, and we need to discuss these things—were about taking content down off the Internet. This bill does not accomplish that.
My hope is that it's not an issue of cowardice. I don't think that's Mr. Viersen's style. I think it's an issue of his colleagues not trusting him, not allowing him to speak and silencing him. It's funny: In question period, they always accuse the Prime Minister of silencing his MPs and his cabinet ministers. Why aren't any of the members here standing up for Arnold? Mr. Brock is one of the ones who get up and ask, “Why is the Prime Minister silencing members of the Liberal caucus?” while, hypocritically, he sits here and just looks on blankly. “Don't let Arnold come and testify, because I don't trust him.” That's what Mr. Brock is saying. He does not trust his colleague.
Conservative
Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON
Mr. Brock has not had an intervention yet, so I really don't know what Mr. Bittle is saying. If he's patient enough and my turn eventually comes around, he's going to hear much from Mr. Brock.
I'll simply add that. Just be patient. You'll hear from me soon, Mr. Bittle.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
I think, again, hypocritically, Mr. Brock was upset by my points of order, but he does the exact same thing. I guess he can sit in his hypocrisy.
Again, I look forward to him talking about how great a colleague Arnold is, yet he will use all of that time to prevent him from coming to testify. This is the standard. I have yet to see a private member's bill on which the sponsor doesn't come to testify.
On Bill S-210, even after the filibuster finally broke down—Mr. Viersen came to filibuster it himself—and we had the sponsor from the Senate come to testify to the bill, Mrs. Vecchio, who I believe was the House of Commons sponsor of that bill, was prevented from testifying. Again, the Conservatives are preventing one of their members from testifying at committee.
Mr. Brock, what I'm talking about is you having interventions in the House of Commons. I'm taking those and putting them here and into my remarks. Again, you are critical of the Prime Minister, but you're doing the exact same thing. Why don't you call...? I'm sure you will devote a large percentage of your time to talking about how great Mr. Viersen is and how he should come to testify.
Again, Mr. Brock claims.... I believe it to be true, because he spent his career as a prosecutor—he likes to mention it frequently—standing up for victims and fighting the good fight. I believe that, but again, this is the process. I know he's new-ish to this place, but he's been here long enough to know that sponsors testify. If it's a government bill, the minister testifies, and we go through the process. Why, in this one case...? What does he not trust Arnold to say? Why doesn't Mr. Barlow trust him? Why doesn't Mr. Van Popta trust him? Why doesn't Mr. Chambers trust him? I know Mr. Barlow just got here, to be fair to Mr. Barlow.
Free Arnold Viersen. Where is he? Why is there the lack of trust? Is he even in the city? Again, let's call him.
Perhaps I can move for unanimous consent, if we want to get this going quickly, to call Mr. Viersen as a witness in this study after the votes this afternoon.