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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

12:45 p.m.

Conservative

Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC

Thank you.

Just in response to Mr. Bittle's intervention, nobody on this side of the table had any objection to who appeared at the meetings. They were all active participants and added value to the discussion. I would just underline that. But there was a problem stemming from what certainly appeared to us to be two groups not having conversations with each other. The analysts did their best to create some sort of a concordance between the two reports. That took time. Now we are at a place where we are running against the clock.

I appreciate what you said, Madam Chair, that the potential witnesses hadn't been invited until recently, or the list hadn't been made available until recently. I wasn't expecting that this would have been done in September, but surely in the last four to six weeks we could have found a way to start on this very important study and get the witnesses here.

To get into the substantive part of Bill C-270 and what it's all about, I want to read briefly the summary of the bill, as follows:

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to prohibit a person from making, distributing or advertising pornographic material for commercial purposes without having first ascertained that, at the time the material was made, each person whose image is depicted in the material was 18 years of age or older and gave their express consent to their image being depicted.

There are two things here, the age requirement and the consent requirement, keeping in mind that people under age can't actually give consent. Personally, I'd never thought too much about the topic, but I was eager to get into the study. I did sit in once when the private member's bill was debated. It was debated twice at second reading, once on April 9 and once on May 7. I sat in for part of the May 7 debate, I believe. I heard some stories about victims and survivors and I became very interested in the topic.

Reading in Hansard these two hours of debate on the private member's bill, I felt a sense of multi-party co-operation on an issue that is so important to all of us—namely, preventing children from being exploited sexually online and stopping the uploading and distribution of non-consensual images. I felt a sense of co-operation among all the speakers. As I said, I was there for only one of them, but I read all the speeches from both hours of debate.

I just want to highlight a couple of them. First, MP Rempel Garner, who happens to be a co-sponsor of Bill C-270, had this to say on April 9: “I am very pleased to hear the multipartisan nature of debate on these types of issues, and that there is at least a willingness to bring forward these types of initiatives to committee to have the discussions”.

MP Garrison, from the NDP, on that same day made this positive comment about the initiative being brought forward by this private member's bill:

It is also important to remember that whatever we do here has to make our law more effective at getting those who are profiting from the images. That is really what the bill is aimed at, and I salute the member for Peace River—Westlock for that singular focus because I think that is really key.

I want to quote from MP Larouche of the Bloc Québécois. It's important to note that she also chaired the All Party Parliamentary Group to End Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking. She has a long track record of being interested in this topic and advocating for victims. She had this to say: “Let us not forget that these [online porn] companies are headquartered right in Montreal. The fact that our country is home to mafia-style companies that profit from sexual exploitation is nothing to be proud of.”

I would say, Madam Chair, that that is an understatement. That's an embarrassment for us. The New York Times picked up the story on this, and the world now knows that Canada is headquarters for mafia-style companies and child pornography. I applaud those who are fighting to combat that.

Even the Liberals supported this private member's bill at second reading, but with serious reservations. This is what MP Maloney had to say. I believe he is online, so I'm going to quote my friend and colleague, Mr. Maloney. He had this to say: “I want to say at the outset that the government will be supporting this bill, Bill C-270, at second reading, but with some serious reservations.” He then pointed out that Bill C-270 was in response to a 2021 report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. That committee, the ethics committee, commenced that study at least partially in response to the New York Times story that had run earlier that year, or it might have been the previous year.

I just want to read a couple of pieces from that report, because I think it is very relevant to what we're talking about today. I'm not going to belabour the point, because the report is available for anybody to read. These are just a couple of paragraphs from the summary of that report:

Recent reports regarding the presence of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) and other non-consensual content on the adult platform Pornhub led the House of Commons Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics (the Committee) to undertake a study on the protection of privacy and reputation on online platforms such as Pornhub. [This is a Canadian company.] This study gave the Committee a window into the world of adult websites and how their content moderation practices have failed to protect the privacy and reputation of individuals online.

The Committee heard harrowing accounts from survivors who had had images and videos of themselves uploaded to the Pornhub website without their consent. Some were minors. Some were adults. All encountered difficulties in having those images and videos taken down. The Committee also heard from the executives of MindGeek and Pornhub, who told the Committee that they have appropriate practices in place and are constantly striving to improve these measures.

I, for one, do not believe that, and certainly the investigation that this committee undertook and the conclusions that they came to would underline that as well.

I just want to read one of the recommendations. This is recommendation 2 of 14 recommendations. I am not belabouring the point; I'm just picking up on some of the highlights, some of the important things to set a context for what we're talking about today.

Recommendation 2 concerning the duty to verify age and consent.

That the Government of Canada mandate that content-hosting platforms operating in Canada require affirmation from all persons depicted in pornographic content, before it can be uploaded, that they are 18 years old or older and that they consent to its distribution, and that it consult with the Privacy Commissioner of Canada with respect to the implementation of such obligation.

Madam Chair, that was recommendation 2 from that 2021 report from the ethics committee, which forms the foundation of the private member's bill that is before us now, and that was the point that Mr. Maloney was making in his speech in the House on May 7.

I have another quote from Mr. Maloney's speech, which was a good speech and it's worth quoting from.

James Maloney Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

Thank you.

12:55 p.m.

Conservative

Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC

It also tells us what is in the mindset of the Liberal members of this committee and the party:

This recommendation responds to ongoing concerns that corporations like Pornhub have made available pornographic images of persons who did not consent or were underage. I want to recognize and acknowledge that this conduct has caused those depicted in that material extreme suffering. I agree that we must do everything that we can to protect those who have been subjected to this trauma and to prevent it from occurring in the first place.

Yes, indeed. Do everything that we can, except don't call witnesses. Witnesses could have been here today.

James Maloney Liberal Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

If Mr. Van Popta is continuing to interpret what I said, let me be very clear. What I was trying to say was that, yes, it's an important bill. Yes, it should be studied by this committee. Yes, Mr. Viersen should be here to explain it to us. It was nothing more complicated than that.

The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab

Thank you, Mr. Maloney, for that.

Go ahead, Mr. Van Popta.

Tako Van Popta Conservative Langley—Aldergrove, BC

Thank you.

Let me take the opportunity to point out once again that we could have witnesses here today. Whether or not Mr. Viersen appears, we could have witnesses here today. There are a lot of important witnesses we could hear from who would give valuable testimony that would help inform our report back to the House of Commons. Again, today we are failing to take that opportunity.

The sense that I have is that the Liberals do not like Bill C-270. At second reading, they voted in favour of sending it to committee, but with “serious reservations”. What are some of those reservations? I'm just going to continue here with some more of Mr. Maloney's comments. I just want to underline, Mr. Maloney, that it was a good speech. It was well-researched and useful information. We might just disagree on the direction that we should be going.

He said:

Individuals who informally make or distribute pornographic material of themselves and of people they know are unlikely to verify age by examining legal documentation.... They are also unlikely to secure formal written consent. It concerns me that such people would be criminalized by the bill's proposed offences, where they knew that everyone implicated was consenting and of age, merely because they did not comply with the...regulatory regime....

We're getting to the heart of their objection. They think that it is a regulatory scheme and that it's not going to work. They also prefer the government bill, Bill C-63, the online harms act, which picks up on some of the direction that the private member's bill that is before us today is taking, but it, too, creates a regulatory scheme. So they are saying, “We don't like your regulatory scheme; we prefer our regulatory scheme.” Is that what it's coming down to?

I think this is a good point to talk about what a couple of the witnesses who appeared at the ethics committee for its study in 2021 said, which goes right to the point that I'm making here. This is witness 1, unidentified, and she had this to say:

When I was 24, I met someone I thought was a really nice guy. I married him, and as soon as he thought I was stuck, he stopped being nice pretty quickly. In April 2020, I moved away from our home to be safe, and obviously, we're not together anymore.

It's going to go on for just a couple of paragraphs, but I think this is really important to get on the record to set the context.

During our relationship, I had let him take some pictures. I was uncomfortable at first, because I had never been in any picture like that, but I trusted him and I wanted to keep him happy. It wasn't until August of 2020 that I discovered those private photos had been uploaded to porn sites, including Pornhub.

Here I want to make a point, Madam Chair. She was of age and she gave consent, but not for what he did with it later, so he would have had a defence against the bill that the Liberals are suggesting would be better than Bill C-270.

She goes on:

I was upset about the photos, but it was about to get worse. Finding the photos led me to a video. I did not know the video existed. I found out about it by watching it on Pornhub.

I don't want to get into the details. It was quite distasteful, but she was drugged. In any event, she was asleep. She had no recollection of it, and she was filmed in—I'm trying to find a polite way to say it—a compromised position. This is what was on the Internet. It was all over the Internet. It was taken by her husband. She was of age. She had consented to some form of photos, but not to that and not to the uploading on Pornhub.

She goes on:

My video had been uploaded in August of 2017, so by the time I found it, it had been active on Pornhub for over three years, and I had no idea.

Then she made a comment about Pornhub and sites like that:

Sexual assault is not an anomaly on the porn sites; it is a genre. This leaves little incentive for these sites to moderate such content.

To give an idea of the scope of the spread, as of early January 2021—after the December purge, and after the RCMP had removed a bunch for me—googling the name of my Pornhub video still returned over 1,900 results....

Thanks to Pornhub, today is day 1,292 that I have been naked on these porn sites.

This is what we are trying to fight. This is what the private member's bill, Bill C-270, is all about. We think it is worth fighting for.

Now, another objection from the Liberals is that the private member's bill is apparently “not consistent with the basic principles of criminal law”, in that it does not require mens rea. Most of us are lawyers here, but for those who aren't, mens rea is the Latin term for the mental element of a crime. Not only must the Crown prove that an event happened, but the Crown also has to prove that the person who caused the criminal event to happen had a guilty mind about it and knew that what they were doing was wrong. Then they go on: “for example, that the accused knew or was reckless as to whether those depicted in the pornographic material did not consent or were not of age.”

Well, in response to that, I'm going to just read something from another person who appeared before the same ethics committee. This is someone who was known only as “Witness 2”. This is what she had to say. It's just a few paragraphs:

I'm now 19 years old. I was 17 when videos of me on Pornhub came to my knowledge, and I was only 15 in the videos they've been profiting from.

“They” means the porn sites.

When I was 15, I was extorted by a man who was unknown at the time into sending massive amounts of videos and images of me.

Why she did that.... It was probably not very wise, but she did it.

Then, two years later.... She said:

This was the first time I had any knowledge of being on their site.

During this time, I stopped eating and leaving the house, and I was even considering suicide. I started getting hundreds of follow requests daily on my social media accounts and at least 50 messages a day sending me links of videos of me on Pornhub. That's when I realized that my name and social media had been posted alongside the videos.

The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab

Mr. Van Popta, hold on one moment. We have a point of order.

Go ahead, Mr. Bittle.

Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON

In saying that the victim wasn't very wise, is Mr. Van Popta blaming the victim? Are we really getting into this for a filibuster, that we're blaming victims for the crimes that are committed against them?

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON

It's not a point of order. That's debate, Madam Chair.

Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON

Mr. Van Popta, if you're going to delay this bill, at least have the decency not to blame the victims.

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON

If Mr. Bittle wants to intervene, perhaps he should put his hand up.

The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab

He did.

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON

Well, tell him to wait until his time. It's not a point of order.

Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON

To whoever's heckling me, I can't hear you in St. Catharines. You're going to have to yell a little louder than that.

It sounds like Mr. Brock is defending his friend who's blaming victims. It is unbelievable that, in a filibuster, the Conservatives would engage in this. I thought they pretended to care about victims.

The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab

Thank you, Mr. Bittle.

Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

I have a point of order, Madame Chair.

The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab

I am listening, Mr. Drouin.

Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

I have the opportunity and the pleasure of sitting with Mr. Brock on the public accounts committee, and he knows very well that the chair at public accounts will not allow any reading when members are filibustering—any reading from any material. I'm just wondering, are we applying the same rules? I'm sure that Mr. Brock would follow the same rules at every committee meeting where we appear. I'm just wondering, is this the standard here or are we applying different standards at other committees? Mr. Brock knows very well this is what we are...but it happens to be a Conservative chair, so maybe the rules are different.

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON

Madam Chair, on the same point of order—

The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab

That's a point I'm willing to suspend to look into.

Go ahead, Mr. Brock.

1:05 p.m.

Conservative

Larry Brock Conservative Brantford—Brant, ON

While that may be the practice in the particular committee that Mr. Drouin references, I stand corrected if I am wrong, but I don't believe that is a standing order. Perhaps the clerk can weigh in on that. It has been customary for you, Madam Chair, to allow some flexibility in terms of how we present, whether knowledge is readily available in one's mind or they are simply refreshing their memory by using material before them.

I think the danger is that you don't want to have a member reading verbatim for hours on end simply to waste time. I don't believe Mr. Van Popta has been doing that at all, from what I've heard and seen so far today and in his brief intervention yesterday.

Ultimately, Madam Chair, you are the chair of this particular committee. You can set your own rules, and you've done a very good job of finding that fine balance. Just because a chair in another committee does something differently, that doesn't necessarily mean that it is a precedent to be followed at every parliamentary committee.

The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab

Thank you, MP Brock. I actually appreciate those words.

Give me a couple of minutes, please. I'm not in public accounts, so I would like to....

Before I do that, go ahead, MP Drouin.

Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

There are just standing orders. I want to thank Mr. Brock for providing me with a great quote, because I will bring this up with our chair.

Chairs would normally chair their meetings fairly the same way across committees. Committees are bound by standing orders.

All committees of Parliament must follow the Standing Orders in the same way. It doesn't differ from committee to committee; it's the same Standing Orders.

The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab

I agree.

I'm going to suspend for a few moments simply to confer with the clerk.

Thank you.

The Chair Liberal Lena Metlege Diab

Thank you very much.

I do appreciate the interventions from all parties on this.

Mr. Van Popta has been on this committee for quite a while—certainly since I've been chairing it. I'm going to allow leeway because I understand Mr. Van Popta is a very honourable member.

There is a rule, though, at page 1,059, with respect to repetition and relevance. I think we all understand that.

As long as you take that into consideration, aren't too repetitive, keep it on the topic at hand and don't go off the topic too much, Mr. Van Popta, please continue.