Justice Committee on Dec. 12th, 2024

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I thank the witnesses for their attendance. I echo the commentary of my colleague Ms. Ferreri that this is such an important discussion we're having today.

Just to clarify, Ms. Haugen, I heard you say that you are not familiar with Bill C-412, which ostensibly achieves the same result in terms of keeping kids safe online. We get to it in a vastly different way versus Bill C-63. It's unfortunate that you haven't had a chance to review that.

Can the same be said for you, Ms. Selby, that you are not familiar with Bill C-412?

[Dr. Jocelyn Monsma Selby]

I've only glanced at Bill C-412. I haven't looked at all the in-depth recommendations.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you.

Ms. Panas, have you had a chance to look at Bill C-412?

[Marni Panas]

I have at a very high, tertiary level, but not deeply, no.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Okay.

I'll start with you, Ms. Panas. I listened very carefully to your opening statement. You reiterated in some of the questions put to you that ultimately you feel safe in this environment, but the same cannot be said when you actually leave this building. You talked about various avenues of online harassment.

Let's face it: That's the reality Canadians are facing. It's not necessarily just children and teenagers. It's also adults. There is a legal definition of criminal harassment in the Criminal Code of Canada, but what's sadly lacking in the Criminal Code of Canada is provisions to deal with online harassment. Sadly—and this is a direct indictment against the Liberal government—Bill C-63 contains no provisions at all that deal with online harassment. Bill C-412 does. I don't know if you've had a chance to dive into Bill C-412 to take a look at the provisions that deal with online harassment.

The question I put to you, Ms. Panas, is this: Do you think law enforcement and judges should have more tools to provide “no contact” orders for criminal harassment online? Do you think that's a good idea?

[Marni Panas]

Look, to even get to a situation where I have the courts involved and police involved would require me—a person who is already unsafe online, a person who is already facing enormous costs just in being visible—to have to report that, to have to be believed by the police in the first place that these things are happening, and to have to address all the biases that are inherently built in law enforcement against trans people. I'm more likely to just do nothing and probably withdraw. That is the consequence. You can give them all the tools they want, but that requires reporting and that requires people to believe and to have a safe process.

Bill C-63 provides means for us to be able to do that in a way where I feel I would be believed for the first time, I would be supported for the first time and I would find some avenue to get that far.

By the time it's gone to the police—

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I'm going to interrupt you there.

Bill C-63 does not provide an avenue for you to deal with online criminal harassment. It is a glaring oversight. Bill C-412 provides a ready, able mechanism that addresses some of the concerns you deal with.

I just wanted to highlight that to you and encourage you to review that.

[Marni Panas]

Sure.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I'll move on now to Ms. Haugen—

[Marni Panas]

I'm sorry, but I have to question you on that. The best thing we can do is avoid these online harms happening in the first place. By the time they get to the police and the courts, we're too late.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I agree. Thank you.

Ms. Haugen, I heard your comments on AI avatars. Do you think it's important to have a broad definition of online operator with regard to the responsibilities tech company operators have, and how their products interact with children, in order to ensure that technological advancements don't outpace protections for children?

[Frances Haugen]

I think we've seen really strong approaches out of places like the U.K. They have standards like “reasonably likely to encounter” versus products that are designed for children. We need to think expansively around that access question and around what it means to be social. For any spaces where extensive communication takes place, where kids have ongoing relationships that are facilitated by technology, we want to make sure they are future-proofed under a similar umbrella.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

Thank you.

I believe that's my time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Yes. Thank you very much.

We will now go to MP Maloney for five minutes, please.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank all the witnesses for being here today. There's a lot to cover.

Ms. Panas, I'll start with something you said. You talked about feeling comfortable and feeling safe online. Last Christmas Day, I posted a video. I was standing in front of a Christmas tree at a community centre wishing everybody a merry Christmas. The first five or six or 10 comments were, “I hope you lose the next election”, “Rot in hell”—blah blah blah—and those were the nice ones. But I sloughed it off. I have big shoulders. It doesn't matter. That's not what this bill is about. This bill is about protecting people who don't have that ability and who are the most vulnerable.

I want to pick up on what Mr. Brock was trying to do. I want to thank you for your answers about the difference between Bill C-63, which you support, and Bill C-412, which I consider to be.... Well, it doesn't matter what I think. We've had witnesses who have said it's far too narrow and doesn't accomplish the goals we're trying to achieve here. One witness said that she thought it confused tort law with criminal law, which I agree with.

I want to deal with this right off the bat. If something is posted online that's offensive and that involves some of the things we're talking about—I won't use the examples—Bill C-63 provides a method to have it taken down from the Internet right away. Contrast that with the so-called solution of Bill C-412, which would require somebody to go out and retain a lawyer, put together some sort of application or motion, go before a judge and try to convince him or her that this should be taken down.

First of all, you're dealing with people who are the most vulnerable, who don't know how to find a lawyer, who can't afford a lawyer, who have to find a lawyer who knows how to deal with this and appear before a judge who has no expertise in this. It's an insulting joke dressed up as policy. It's not effective. I'd like to get that off the table.

I'm assuming you agree with that, Ms. Panas. You've already highlighted the importance of having the ability to deal with this quickly.

[Marni Panas]

I couldn't agree more. If you think putting yourself in front of a Christmas tree is giving you some grief online, I encourage your Conservative colleagues to tweet support for trans people and trans rights, say that trans women are women, and see what kind of hate and abuse they get. That's what I live with every day. You folks get to walk out of here, take off your MP hats and be okay. I don't get to take off my trans identity and be cis for the rest of the day just because life is hard. My life is hard all day, every day.

That would mean trying to find a judge or lawyers or police who will even believe me that this thing even occurred. It's not possible.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Right. Thank you.

Ms. Selby, I want to move over to you. I took your comments to mean that you're in support of the digital safety commission and the ombudsman. You're in support of this process, which would provide a mechanism to respond and act quickly. Is that right?

[Dr. Jocelyn Monsma Selby]

Absolutely.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Okay.

It also means, as you quite accurately pointed out, that it provides consistency around the world. If you go with the court approach, you'll have the challenges we just talked about, and it also won't be consistent with what happens in the U.K., Australia and other countries around the world, whereas now you're creating a group of people across the globe who have expertise in this and you can address the problem. That was your point, I take it.

[Dr. Jocelyn Monsma Selby]

Absolutely.

I also want to make one other point. In Holland right now, they've experienced that for sexually exploitive material.... It will take three days to take down child sexual exploitation material, but terrorist material is taken down immediately, within an hour. We know that some of the online platforms can take down sexual exploitation material as soon as it is identified, within an hour. However, if regulation isn't put in place, the sexual exploitation material takes longer to take down.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you.

We've heard from witnesses already who have lived through horrific experiences with their children and families, who have tried to use the courts and the criminal process to address this and who have tried to do it directly with the social media platforms. It simply doesn't work. That is why the digital safety commission and the ombudsperson are so critical, so that it can be responded to quickly.

Ms. Selby, I take it you support part 1 of Bill C-63.

[Dr. Jocelyn Monsma Selby]

Yes, I do. It's consistent with other countries in the world. It's consistent with Australia. I have a whole list of countries, if you want them.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Etobicoke—Lakeshore, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Lena Metlege Diab]

Thank you very much.

We will now go to our final two and a half minutes. We have Monsieur Fortin, followed by Mr. MacGregor.

Go ahead, Monsieur Fortin.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to go back to Ms. Haugen, this time on the issue of private messaging. It was discussed that it should be included in Bill C‑63, and it was proposed that certain obligations be imposed on social media companies, including:

…reporting unusual friend requests from strangers in remote locations…removing invitations to expand one's network through friend recommendations based on location and interests…providing easy-to-use complaint mechanisms…providing user accountability tools, such as account blocking.

All that seems reasonable to me, but the fact remains that we're talking about breaking into individuals' private messages. I have the same question about freedom of expression and privacy: Aren't we going too far? Shouldn't private messaging be left private, or is there really a need for provisions to enable the owners of these addresses to better control what goes on there and the messages their users receive and send?