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.