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.
Bloc
Rhéal Fortin Bloc Rivière-du-Nord, QC
I see. In that case, we'll just have to see how long our Conservative colleagues feel like talking.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Thank you very much, Mr. Fortin.
We will now take a five-minute break.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
I call the meeting back to order.
Colleagues, we are returning. I believe everybody is in the room or in one location or another.
Mr. Kurek, the floor is yours. Thank you.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I hope everyone was able to take care of the call of nature. We look forward to being able to get back to this very important discussion.
I would just note, Madam Chair, that I've been very intentional in my remarks. I've talked with precision about organizations and their endorsements of this bill and I've talked about the need to get it across the proverbial finish line.
I would just share that when I was originally planning to join this conversation, I hoped there would be the opportunity for us to ask questions of some of the important witnesses whose names were submitted. I believe our side submitted them close to a week ago. However, we are here today, discussing the bill and the amendment to extend the study, which puts at risk the ability for this very important piece of legislation....
As we're getting back to the discussion here today, I'll just highlight how important it is that we actually get this across the finish line. A 30-day delay is quite possibly the equivalent to what I discussed quite briefly earlier, about seeing it die at committee. It is so important that we get this sorted and get it across the finish line.
Madam Chair, I'll continue to share some of the organizations that have done such good work across the country, and in other parts of the world as well, especially with the Internet. I'll get back to the endorsements this bill has from so many organizations.
Again, it was supported by every member of Parliament. It's been endorsed by a whole host of organizations. However, I think one thing is understated. It used to be, prior to the advent of the Internet, that when we had issues come forward, particularly of a criminal nature, it was pretty easy to delineate what had happened, where it had happened and how. You were in a jurisdiction, a crime had been committed in that jurisdiction, and then the prosecution could take place, etc. With the advent of the Internet, and cyberspace more generally, the virtual nature of it has really changed the understanding of borders in terms of the impact.
The key with Bill C-270 is making sure that we're drawing that line that is so important to say Canada is not the place for this. It is also very important in the context of saying Canada cannot be a place where this is allowed to happen. If we can get this bill across the finish line, that could very well have a global impact.
I won't get into it here, but I could speak at length about the frustrations I have with the Trudeau government's foreign policy and the deterioration in how Canada is viewed abroad and a whole host of things around that. I don't want to get into that because I want to stay very focused on Bill C-270, but one of the things I think the world needs to know is that Canada's willing to take a strong stand to say that there are things that are not acceptable and that in Canada, we draw the line. We have the opportunity to ensure that when it comes to sexual exploitation, the materials associated with that and the wide impact they have, this bill will be the signal to the world that says that Canada is not a haven for these sorts of corporate bad actors.
It will be that signal to the world that it is not allowed; that there are consequences to this that we can stand, in terms of our global partners, through various law enforcement agencies, intelligence, etc., to be able to say that Canada is a place where justice and the rule of law is strong and that there are consequences to exploiting those who are most vulnerable within our society.
That signal would not be important just in the context of where we are on this issue; there are also a host of peripheral issues around law and order. I want to stay focused on Bill C-270, but the issues surrounding Internet sexual exploitation and some of the crime, and the nature of how that happens in different parts of the underground economy, for example.... We have seen a massive growth in some of these things over the last number of years. As a result, there are many who are questioning Canada's ability to stand up for the rule of law.
Whenever we talk about these things, we have to keep the victims at the forefront of our minds. In this case, it's those who are the subject of this exploitive material. That's pretty straightforward. However, when it comes to criminal justice matters across the board, there is, I would suggest, a very clear need to be able to say that Canada is not a place where crime can flourish. We are a country that expects the rule of law to be upheld. As a result, with the rule of law being upheld, we can ensure that the victims of crime are in fact protected. This is because the best way to ensure that victims are protected is to ensure that there are fewer victims.
That's one of my biggest frustrations about many of the discussions around criminal justice and some of the reforms that have been brought about. Especially over the last nine or so years, we have seen a deterioration of the things that have traditionally been.... You used to be able to just take for granted that somebody convicted of a crime would stay in prison, that there would be justice for individuals who perpetrated an injustice. I think there are tangible aspects to the deterioration of that trust. You can hear it from anybody who's been the victim of a crime. You can hear it in their voice. There's a very clear understanding of that.
We have before us an example of how we're able to take steps in the right direction to ensure that we protect Canadians. We can—and, I would suggest, need—to send the signal to the world that Canada is not a safe haven for lawlessness and that we're not a safe haven for bad corporate actors when it comes to things like explicit material that has been obtained through non-consensual means. We need to send a signal that there's a clear mechanism to protect some of the most vulnerable.
The best solution, especially when it comes to law and order reforms—these justice reforms that are so important—is to reduce the number of victims. It's a somewhat intangible thing, because that solution means that there will be fewer people affected. However, that's the point. When there are fewer victims, it demonstrates that you are actually able to address some of these challenges.
There is a responsibility for all of us around this table and for every MP supporting this bill in getting to this stage. I wish we could have been able to question witnesses today. However, instead, we're debating an extension that could regrettably kill this bill if it were to pass. There are all of these things surrounding this.
At the very root of all of this, it has to be.... We can stand up for the past victims and we can help reduce the number of victims going forward. As a result, I think it's incumbent upon all of us to ensure that this does, in fact, happen. Certainly I and my colleagues—including the sponsor of this bill, who's done a ton of work to make it happen—have this responsibility. My hope is that the members of the government who are trying to delay the passing of this bill, instead of putting—
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
I have a point of order. It's on an issue of relevancy, Madam Chair.
Mr. Kurek has been very good in the last hour and a half, but accusing us of delaying when he's been talking for an hour and a half and when the only point of contention is that the sponsor of the bill refusing to appear.... If he appears, I'm happy to discuss it and get it through as quickly as possible, but it's rather cowardly that he refuses to attend, and the Conservatives are covering up his not attending.
I am wondering if Mr. Kurek could use his next hour and a half to explain why Mr. Viersen, who is passionate about this issue, refuses to appear and why there is this cowardly refusal.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab
Thank you, Mr. Bittle.
MP Kurek, I'm going to let you continue. You were speaking on the motion before us.
November 7th, 2024 / 1:30 p.m.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Thank you. I appreciate it.
I think it touches on something incredibly relevant, because we could have witnesses before us who could be talking about how important this bill is, yet we have instead a proposal by the Liberals to delay and quite possibly kill this important bill, a bill that would help set a standard in this country to say it is not okay to exploit those who are most vulnerable.
I will continue to share some organizations that have made a very clear statement, sharing how important it is that we pass this bill and that we pass it quickly.
When it comes to the members of the governing party, since they supported this bill at second reading, I hope they do not have some nefarious motive in standing up for some of the most egregious actors, both individuals and corporations, in our society.
Certainly, when it comes to the history, I referenced earlier the close connection this bill has with Bill S-210. Quite frankly, it was astounding to have the government, and in particular the Liberal cabinet, bow down to the lobbyists of some of the most egregious corporate actors on the planet instead of standing up for minors, in the case of Bill S-210, and ensuring that they are protected in our society.
In the absence of having witnesses before us—and I would note that they could have been there today, but they're not—I will read a quote from Parents Aware. They describe their organization a bit in the quote, so I will share with the committee their endorsement of Bill C-270. They said:
Parents Aware offers our full support on the Criminal Code amendments that are proposed in the Stopping Internet Sexual Exploitation Act. We feel that the addition of these offences with penalties is an effective way to hold companies and individuals criminally responsible when creating and distributing pornographic content depicting underage participants.
Here you have another organization that does good work in helping to bring awareness to some of the risks that exist in the online world and in particular the impact they can have on minors.
I'll just note something I found interesting. We did a TikTok study during my time on the ethics committee, which was very enlightening. It connects to this because it speaks to the speed with which technology is evolving. In particular, there are studies that suggest that the use of TikTok has endorphin-type responses in the brain similar to those from pulling the handle of a slot machine. It's that sort of thing, and the algorithms and the content that exist.
I know there was a big announcement yesterday—and I won't get into the specifics of it because it would be off topic, and I wouldn't want to get off topic—from the government related to TikTok, which I have no doubt will be studied. It will probably be studied by the ethics committee.
We have this responsibility to ensure that the justice system is responsive to the bad actors preying on some of the advances that have taken place and the access we have.
I think it's access. We are in the Internet age. I've talked quite a bit at different points in time about the first version of the Internet. It was that idea that the world could be connected, that there was access and that one computer could connect to another computer. That was a revolutionary concept. It obviously expanded significantly. It came with the idea that there was information associated with it.
We then moved into this “web 2” type of scenario. We had “web 1”, which was the access part. A news website would be a good example of that. You now have access to content—an encyclopedia, so to speak, at your fingertips—that you might not have had prior to that point, and then “web 2” came along.
That's very much the idea of social media. It's this interactive type. My social media will look different from my colleagues' social media, different from the social media of other folks and, Madam Chair, different from your social media. It all looks different, and it's the same thing in every aspect of that. You have algorithms. That idea of "web 2" is that it is no longer just a brochure or a library online; it's something that is actually responsive. It's a kitchen table that is truly the entire world all at once, all speaking at the same time.
We are moving from that, however, to what is often referred to as “web 3”, and that is the world in which it is certainly less tangible, in the sense that you're involving artificial intelligence.
I think there are certain expectations of AI. You look to sci-fi, dystopian-type future movies in which robots take over the world, and that's not what I think the point is. The point is that you now have the ability for the Internet to start to do some of the content curation on its own, so it's not simply responding to you but interpreting how you would want it to respond to something. That can have an impact in the ability for content to be created, and that's what I referenced before—the work that's been done by one of my colleagues in terms of deep fakes. That's one small part of it. That's the creation of content.
It can also be the scraping of content. We see this in terms of copyright for music. You can ask ChatGPT today or any AI chat generator to write you a song, and it's quite something. I'd encourage those who maybe haven't had the chance to do so to go play around with that, because it gives you some insight into the level of interaction that the “web 3” world will have, and you see it in the context of a chat generator.
The reason it connects so closely with Bill C-270 is that in the absence of a clear framework for accountability, it does not limit the leaps and bounds of advancement in how that will impact people, including victims of exploitation in the future. It started off and was pretty easy with “web 1” because it was just basically the world going online and being connected. Access was a big part of it. “Web 2” algorithms have been, and still are, a big part of what this future is, but “web 3” is now taking it to the next step. We have to make sure, in particular when it comes to the content for which there may not be consent, that we develop the legal framework to ensure that there are consequences for the actions of bad actors, both corporate and individual.
When it comes to the role of Parents Aware as an organization, I know there are a whole host of other groups that are doing good work in talking about how to keep kids safe online. It's of course the bogeyman type of scenario, with a bad actor on the other end who would try to do terrible things, but it's becoming more than just that. It is opening up a world of danger online that we all carry with us and have access to in the devices we all keep in our pockets and vote on. We have to ensure that the actors who would perpetrate the crimes can still be held responsible. That's what it really comes down to. In the organization that I just referenced, you have a clear example of the ability for consequences for those actions.
Madam Chair, I had spoken a little bit about the story of Joy Smith. My wife, Danielle, had the opportunity to volunteer in her office back in 2015, and see the incredible legacy and the work that's been done.
I know my colleague across the way has done a tremendous amount of work when it comes to helping to combat human trafficking. I believe his bill received royal assent. Did it?
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
There's a host of work that's been done by members from all political parties to take action on these very important issues.
Mrs. Joy Smith was one of those individuals at Parliament. The foundation that stands in her name is still doing some of that work. The Joy Smith Foundation said:
Canadians must take a stand and insist that our country not be a safe haven for people to financially benefit from the recorded sexual victimization of anyone—especially youth. The SISE Act is a necessary step in ensuring that those who capitalize on filmed sex crimes are held accountable for the immense harm their actions cause.
True to fashion, Mrs. Smith, as in her time in Parliament, is not afraid of throwing punches. Exactly as she outlines, we have an opportunity to draw a line to say, “Look, this is not an acceptable action in our country.”
I hope we do not see this bill die at committee because of a delay. Rather, I hope we can—as I've been endeavouring to do—highlight some of the important organizations that show expertise. When they're endorsing a bill, it's a pretty good indication of the value the bill has in combatting this egregious activity that, unfortunately, has happened and is happening in our country. Let's make sure that we are able to stop this activity.
I will also share a quote from the Hope Resource Centre. This association does a tremendous amount of good work in providing hope to those who are facing significant challenges. It said:
Hope Resource Centre is confident the (SISE) Act will provide necessary systemic protective changes as we lead by example to encourage global collaboration through increased awareness and preventative action within Canada to this insidious form of abuse—internet sexual exploitation.
Again we have an example of an acknowledgement that through leadership here in Canada, we can take a strong stand that says enough is enough. We can demonstrate a level of leadership in the world. As we have the opportunity to demonstrate that, we will send a signal that says enough is enough. We are going to stop it. Enough is enough.
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
If only we could ensure that this bill gets back to the House, we could ensure that this does in fact happen. My encouragement is that by ensuring this is accomplished as soon as possible, we can demonstrate to the world that our justice system is able to be responsive.
I have a further quote from the EFC, the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, which said:
By requiring that the age and consent of every person depicted in sexually explicit material be verified before it is posted online, the Stopping Internet Sexual Exploitation Act puts the responsibility where it belongs. We support this bill’s measures to ensure illegal content is not uploaded in the first place.
I would highlight that this is key. If you can stop this process early and send that chill through the actors who are perpetrating these crimes to begin with, you can effectively ensure that you stop the victimization at the earliest opportunity.
The ability to do just that, I would suggest, is a key part of why this needs to get accomplished within the timeline to ensure the greatest chance possible. I had the opportunity to very briefly discuss why the timeline for that is so important.
The idea of ensuring that there is that consent is key because it places the responsibility with those who have the best opportunity to ensure that it is effectively managed. You have the individuals who are creating the content; obviously, that's a big part of it. The non-consensual side is another element to this. To ensure that those who are creating the content and those who are distributing the content, those two key actors here.... I can't emphasize that enough, because that is where the responsibility can and, I would suggest, should be, because, as it's outlined in this bill, those are the individuals who are not just creating the victimization in the first circumstance but, then, by their actions, are also creating that cycle of victimization, which can have such devastating consequences in the lives of the individuals who are affected. In particular, there is, of course, the impact it has on minors, but also the impact that it disproportionately has on women, as well as on all those who are affected and the many who, as we referenced earlier, do suffer in silence.
I would like to further read a quote from the Justice Defense Fund. This is what they said:
There is not a more important piece of legislation to protect victims from criminal sexual exploitation online than mandatory age and consent verification for pornography production and distribution online. This is a long overdue, commonsense, and urgently needed regulation that has the potential to protect thousands, if not millions of individuals, including children, from facing life altering, traumatic, sexual abuse.
What's interesting, in particular, is that these folks highlight something I would suggest is worth noting. I'll spend just a very brief moment talking about this. That is the idea of sexual abuse in terms of the subject matter. There is the abuse in terms of the instance and the horrific nature of that and the impact it can have, but whenever you add the content side of that—somebody being the subject of exploitation and the fact that it is recorded, whatever the case is—it creates a revictimization every time. That is not just viewed by that individual. There is the trauma associated with that for the individual who is the victim. The fact is that there is a weight and a heaviness associated with that, which that person then has to live with for the rest of their life.
I shared a couple of examples and stories of where there's been such a—
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
That's a very important point that Mr. Kurek is bringing up, but, again, it's a relevancy issue, because what he's talking about is in the online harms act, which I would love for us to get to. It isn't in this legislation, so I was hoping he could focus his remarks on why Mr. Viersen refuses to come and appear on his own legislation.
Liberal
Conservative
Damien Kurek Conservative Battle River—Crowfoot, AB
Well, I would suggest, Madam Chair, that it is incredibly relevant to the conversation we are having, because if Mr. Bittle had read Bill C-270, he would have noted the close parallel to what I am discussing and exactly what we are talking about here today, as well as the fact that Bill C-270 very specifically articulates the need for consequences for egregious actions that have taken place.
The good news, as I described very briefly earlier, is the autonomy that we are granted as members of Parliament. In the guidelines of being able to stay relevant, the Justice Defense Fund, I would suggest, has a particular expertise on the subject at hand. That expertise is being lent to this committee for the purpose of saying that we need to get this done. For the benefit of Mr. Bittle, I'll just emphasize one part of their endorsement of this bill: “This is...urgently needed [and] has the potential to protect thousands, if not millions of individuals, including children, from facing life altering, traumatic, sexual abuse.” I would hope that Mr. Bittle takes that very, very seriously.
I would suggest further, Madam Chair, that, as I think I've outlined quite fairly and have endeavoured to not get super political here.... Now, that will be something that I know some of my colleagues from the other side might have trouble believing. However, when we have a bill that was supported by all members, that has such widespread support.... I would suggest that there are a lot more areas where I could have gotten political, even in what I think could have been a significantly longer intervention thus far. I've endeavoured to keep it as brief as I can, but I want to ensure that we have this very direct understanding of what we are trying to accomplish here. I would suggest that it is key for ensuring that we can actually get it done.
I would just note that one of the aspects of Parliament that we.... Sometimes, it gets a bad rap for not getting any stuff done. If you look at how the Liberals have paralyzed the House of Commons over the last number of months, it's certainly evidence of that. However, I want to stick to Bill C-270 here. This is a chance where we can truly get something accomplished and then get to work at ensuring that it can pass in the other place as well—or what we refer to as “the other place”, that being the upper chamber of Canada's Parliament, the Senate of Canada—where I would hope and certainly have the expectation.... I know that it has addressed a number of bills similar to this in the past and has been able to endorse them, and that certainly gives me some hope that we can get this sorted out.
When it comes to actually getting this done, if this is delayed by 30 days, as the motion that we are discussing here today proposes, all of the things that I've endeavoured to articulate as succinctly as possible get lost, and we have to restart this process. We don't want to do that. We want to actually get stuff done. I think Canadians want to see that this action is, in fact, taken.
I'd like to share a quote, if I could, Madam Chair, from Andrea Heinz. She has this to say:
An integral part of this valuable bill is to focus on our youth and ensure each person whose image is depicted in the material is a consenting 18 years or older. Having worked over 7,000 cases of survivors of human trafficking and their families, it is critical the Criminal Code be amended to ensure the safety of these underaged individuals.
Now, I'm very glad that Mr. Bittle brought up something that has such close relevance to this bill. I would suggest that one of the things that we've heard and that I've certainly heard from constituents in relation to the concerns around Bill C-63 is that it's off the point in terms of actually accomplishing the set objective. I don't think anybody is opposed to what they would suggest the bill accomplishes. However, as they say, the proof is in the pudding.
Here we have an example of how and where I would suggest that bill falls short, and there's a whole host of issues that I don't want to get into here because we're sticking to the very relevant subject matter at hand, although we could probably talk at length about Bill C-63 and some of the issues related to that.
Where Bill C-270 really hits the mark is that it puts very clear parameters into ensuring that there are consequences for bad actors. I would suggest it is that clarity, as I outlined before when I went through the bill, that ensures there is this needed certainty so that Canada marks that line, as I've talked about, that signals to those actors and to the world that Canada is not a haven for these bad actors.
I would just note that in this quote, this individual says she had worked with 7,000 cases of survivors related to human trafficking; that's a big number. That is a lot of individuals who have faced the incredible impact that crime has on victims and those survivors. I would suggest, Madam Chair, that we look at that number and don't just gloss over it, because you're talking about 7,000 individuals who have parents—a mom and a dad—and who have siblings. They have, in some cases, kids, and they have grandparents. Certainly, the number of people impacted by just this individual's work speaks to how important an issue this is to ensure that we're actually addressing the issues that Canadians expect us to be able to address.
I would, Madam Chair, further like to share a quote from the Ottawa Coalition to End Human Trafficking, which says, “This is an issue that requires priority, attention, and dedication on all fronts, and thus far has not been treated in this manner” by Parliament. This is a legislative gap that Bill C-270 will fill in our criminal justice system. “The victims involved in this investigation and the thousands of other victims out there deserve our greatest efforts and support.” Bill C-270 will provide this support in more ways than one. Sometimes you just can't time things better than this, but certainly, when it comes to the issue at hand, we're debating an extension, and the Ottawa Coalition to End Human Trafficking talks about how Bill C-270 fills the gaps as needed.
I would suggest that the simple, straightforward and common-sense solution, while we should have been addressing the issue with witnesses here today, is that we do not want to see this unnecessarily delayed. This is to ensure, as there are organizations like this that are highlighting some of the concerns, that we take the diligence and the need to get this stuff sorted out. In this case, let's get Bill C-270 back to Parliament. We don't need to extend it by 30 days. We need to get it back to Parliament so that, hopefully, it can get passed, or at least so that it has the very best chance of passing before this Parliament comes to an end—although, certainly, if the Liberals just handed over the documents related to SDTC, we'd be back to private members' business, but I digress on that front.
Further to that, I would suggest that there is a—
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Thank you so much.
That actually wasn't relevant. Could Mr. Kurek get back to the topic in question, which is Arnold Viersen being unwilling and too cowardly to come and testify?
Conservative
Conservative
Adam Chambers Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Thank you very much.
This is my first time at this committee. It's wonderful.