Justice Committee on April 29th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Yes, please.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

This amendment relates to sexually explicit deepfake images, which is something that's of major concern to women and gender-diverse people across Canada. When sexual predators generate sexually explicit images of recognizable individuals, that is an act of violence. When someone creates a sexualized image of you without your consent where the intent of sexualization is to humiliate and silence you, that is a violation of your safety.

As an example of where this bill falls short, we've seen recently that X/Twitter has encouraged users to produce sexualized images using its Grok AI tool, including realistic human images resembling children and underaged girls.

As experts have told us, the legislation as it is currently drafted would not capture these offences, as it does not include the words “creation of images”, only their distribution. Other countries have been tougher on big tech executives like Elon Musk, and have banned this platform. So far, even in this legislation, the government has failed to act to protect the safety of women and children.

I'm urging the government and all members of this committee to join me in improving this legislation by refusing to be soft on tech giants like Elon Musk and prohibiting the creation of sexually explicit deepfakes that violate the safety and well-being of women and gender-diverse people.

This was also echoed by Children First Canada, even in the new recommendations to prohibit children and young teens from going on social media. Although they're not opposed to having an age restriction, it does not deal with the root of the problem, which is holding big media and tech giants responsible for allowing these abuses to occur.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you.

Does anyone else want to comment?

Go ahead, Mr. Fortin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think our NDP colleague's concern is valid. In my opinion, the problem is that production as such is not defined in Bill C‑16 and that could open the door to a distorted interpretation.

I am not the one who decides, but I think it is appropriate for the Minister of Justice to look into the matter so that, in a subsequent review, a definition of production can be introduced.

I'm sharing my concern with you, but, as I said, I'm going to have to vote against the amendment at this stage. In addition, it comes up in a number of other places in the NDP amendments and, unfortunately, the problem is the same: Production is not defined. It would therefore be problematic to support it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thanks, Mr. Fortin.

Is there anybody else?

We have Mr. Housefather and then Mr. Lawton.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to say that I agree with Mr. Fortin. The Supreme Court has already created an exception for personal use, and it has been used in a number of cases. It seems to me that there would be a charter issue, because the Supreme Court has already defined a personal use exception, which is not included in the proposed wording. I completely agree that we should look at that in the future.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thanks.

Go ahead, Mr. Lawton.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

I was hoping to get some clarification from the officials on that point as well.

Again, I understand that we are—especially in this section of the bill—dealing with reprehensible content. There's no doubt about that, but the law as it stands does distinguish between publication and creation that stays on someone's computer and is never shared with anyone.

That is a fairly clear distinction in the law right now, isn't it? Anything you can add about why that is the case would be helpful.

[Nathalie Levman]

Certainly. Thank you for the question.

I'm sure you're all familiar with the Supreme Court of Canada's 2001 Sharpe decision. In that decision, they held that making and possessing fictional child sexual abuse and exploitation material doesn't cause sufficient harm to merit criminalization. In order to preserve its constitutionality, they read in a private use exception, and basically that exception exculpates a person who possesses or makes fictional child sexual abuse and exploitation material and keeps that material solely for their own use, unless there's evidence that the accused made the material with intent to distribute it.

I'd like to stress that officials are seized of this matter and are working on it, including with our provincial and territorial partners, who enforce the law and can help us gather the evidence that we need to justify a full ban.

Thank you very much.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Ms. Levman, just to confirm, if someone makes it with the intent to distribute but is arrested under some circumstances before that distribution has happened, is that already captured by the law?

[Nathalie Levman]

You would have to prove it through the evidence. You would have to prove the person—

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

There is already an offence there, assuming it's proved.

[Nathalie Levman]

The private use exception applies only to somebody who makes it and keeps it for their own use. The flip side of it is that if that person intended to distribute it, they don't have access to the private use exception. That makes sense.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thanks, Mr. Lawton.

Is there anybody else? No?

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I have a question.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Sure. Go ahead, Ms. Gazan.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

We're talking about child sexual abuse. What happens, then, if it's an adult and somebody takes a picture for their own personal use? What sort of protections do they get? I bring up that question because that's really what's being brought up by women's organizations. It's both. It's the distribution, but also the use of deepfakes for any purposes without permission by the victim.

I really do hope that there's swift action on this, because that's really the root of the problem. The people who are doing it are getting off scot-free. We are lessening the restraints on big tech giants that are being totally irresponsible around the dissemination of violence against women.

I want to leave it there. I'm not here often, so I'm going to use this time to defend....

Okay. Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Shall NDP-2 carry?

(Amendment negatived)

(Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to)

(On clause 14)

We're on CPC-10.

Mr. Lawton.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

This is an amendment that would replace line 30 on page 6 in clause 14 with the following:

[rea]sonably be expected to be nude or nearly nude, to expose their sexual

The main change is the addition of “nearly nude” when we're talking about this sort of material. This was something that came out of the witness testimony we heard. As I shared when this came up, it actually came, not out of a personal experience that I encountered—no one would want to see that—but out of something that a friend of mine encountered on social media. With the advancement of technology, we are seeing these very sophisticated and in some cases quite traumatizing assaults taking place. This simply ensures that a small technicality is not excluding something that I think this law intends to capture. That's where that came from. I believe it was actually the NAWL that suggested it originally, and some other stakeholders we consulted were very supportive of this.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Lawton.

Ms. Lattanzio.

[Patricia Lattanzio, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

I just want to say that I agree with Mr. Lawton, as it clarifies the scope of the offence, and it aligns with evolving case law and responds to the needs of the victims. I agree with you.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Mr. Fortin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have the same problem with this amendment as I do with the NDP one: It doesn't define production.

We in the Bloc Québécois have read the amendment proposed by Mr. Lawton. I understand the spirit of the amendment and I share our colleague's concern. However, the term “nearly nude” is a bit problematic. It's not defined. As it happens, anyone who goes to a beach meets people who are nearly nude, people in bathing suits. You know as well as I do that bathing suits are getting smaller and smaller. It is easier and easier to think that people are nearly nude. What are we really talking about when we use the term “nearly nude”? I don't think the idea is to stop people from wearing bathing suits. It's problematic.

The amendment is too vague and opens the door too much for us to support it, although I understand the concerns of our colleague Mr. Lawton.

[The Chair, Liberal, James Maloney]

Thank you, Mr. Fortin.

Shall CPC-10 carry?

(Amendment agreed to on division)

(Clause 14 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 15)

This takes us to NDP-3.

Ms. Gazan, it's back to you.