Yes.
Evidence of meeting #124 for Canadian Heritage in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was children.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #124 for Canadian Heritage in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was children.
A recording is available from Parliament.
6:05 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Yes.
I have to agree with Mr. Coteau. My recollection is that we have, on many different occasions, sought unanimous consent to sit beyond an allocated time. To do this now on a per-vote basis, I think, is certainly disappointing, given that I know there are four members who have other commitments, and important ones.
It is not that this is not important; this is incredibly important, but to put members in a situation—
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
This has not been the practice, and I'm disappointed to see that we're doing this.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
Mr. Noormohamed, the interpreters cannot hear you. Can you turn your microphone on again if you're going to speak?
I just want to point out that the more we talk, the less time we have for questions.
Go ahead, Mr. Noormohamed. Can you turn on your microphone?
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
My microphone is on. Can the interpreters not hear me?
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
We're getting an okay from the interpreters.
Go ahead, Mr. Noormohamed. You may repeat what you said.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
My point is, very simply, that this is an incredibly important conversation. We have members who want to participate in it but who also have other commitments that will begin after this meeting. It's disappointing that we are changing what has been prevailing practice to now move to a vote for something that could have been done through unanimous consent or with a different solution. It is disappointing that we've just decided to make this decision now.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Hedy Fry
We now have to start the questions.
The first round begins with the Conservatives for six minutes.
Mrs. Thomas, please go ahead.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you.
Thank you to all of the witnesses for your patience today.
My first question goes to Ms. Lalonde.
In an article that you recently wrote with regard to Bill C-63, you said it “contains...glaring gaps that risk leaving women and girls in Canada unfairly exposed.”
I'm wondering if you can expand on those gaps that you see within the legislation that would perhaps leave women and children vulnerable.
6:10 p.m.
Research and Knowledge Mobilization Specialist, Centre for Research and Education on Violence Against Women and Children
Yes, I can, for sure.
In my mind, it's around the support for survivors and how we build that in. I know there's talk of the safety commission and the ombudsperson. Unless they have a mandate to support survivors—which would be new, and they'd have to build relationships with that community—what we need is to have support for the gender-based violence sector to continue uplifting survivors and promoting healing opportunities.
I think of that especially because the legislation talks so much about regulation, which would require survivors to be the ones who report the violence that they're experiencing. How do we even get to know about the violence unless we're supporting survivors to report it and to heal from it?
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Thank you. There certainly is a need to be survivor-centric.
I guess I'm further concerned, though, with regard to this legislation. To your point, it sets up a digital safety commission and a digital safety ombudsman, which essentially allows individuals to issue or file a complaint or a concern with these folks. Then, of course, the commission or the ombudsman has the authority to issue fines and to evaluate how platforms are functioning. However, in terms of actual teeth, deepfakes are a real thing, as has been mentioned, and there is no change to the Criminal Code in terms of making it criminal to create and distribute intimate deepfakes online.
I guess I'm curious if this is something that would be worth the government pursuing on behalf of Canadians and ensuring that vulnerable individuals are better cared for.
6:10 p.m.
Research and Knowledge Mobilization Specialist, Centre for Research and Education on Violence Against Women and Children
We've certainly seen success in the U.K. in terms of their criminalization of distribution, so that does remain important. One of the biggest websites of deepfake sexual abuse was taken down in the U.K. after that decision was made.
I think the creation piece is another area where we could stop the violence early on if people realized the ramifications before they started. That's another avenue that could certainly be explored.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
In your estimation, should there be an expansion of the Criminal Code to include intimate deepfakes or the abuse that transpires based on those?
6:10 p.m.
Research and Knowledge Mobilization Specialist, Centre for Research and Education on Violence Against Women and Children
Yes, I think so. I think, more than anything, that it would signal this as a form of violence, given how much it is doubted. The study in 2023 that I mentioned assessed 95,000 different deepfake sexual abuse videos and also asked people, “Do you feel guilty watching these?”, and overwhelmingly people said no. There needs to be a signalling of this as a form of violence in recognition of that.
Criminalization is important, but in addition to that, it's also education, especially with youth. We're seeing young people increasingly use this technology that could be harmful in a way that perhaps immediately goes to concerns about criminalization and shame. In a way, that promotes sex positivity and sexual expression, but it shares how harms could be produced.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
You have also stated, with regard to this bill, that “Technology-facilitated violence that Canadians have been increasingly experiencing does not impact everyone in the same way and at the same rates”. You're tapping into this idea that there is technology-facilitated violence. How could that be better addressed through legislation?
6:15 p.m.
Research and Knowledge Mobilization Specialist, Centre for Research and Education on Violence Against Women and Children
Even when we're talking about a digital safety commission, we're talking about raising digital awareness. It's also getting to the root causes, so yes, we need to talk about digital literacy, but we also need to talk about misogyny. We need to talk about gender equity. These are all very interconnected issues, especially when we're talking about these forms of violence that so disproportionately target women and girls.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
Rachael Thomas Conservative Lethbridge, AB
Okay. Thank you. I take your point, for sure.
My next question is for Dr. Selby.
Can you talk a little bit about platforms—you touched on this a little bit in your opening remarks—in terms of strategies around how platforms function and the vulnerabilities that are created for children online? What could be done from a legislative standpoint?
I understand that there's a lot of education needed, for sure, but in this room we're legislators. What could be done on that level in order to protect children on those platforms?
