:
I call to order meeting number 30 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. For the record, today is Thursday, October 21, 2010. I would just note that today's meeting is in fact televised.
You have before you the agenda for today. We are continuing and hopefully completing our review of Bill , an act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service.
To assist us with our review, we have with us the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, its executive director, Lianna McDonald, as well as her assistant, Mary Milner. Welcome to both of you.
We're looking forward to hearing what you have to say. As you know, you have approximately ten minutes to present, and then we'll open the floor to questions from our members. So please proceed.
:
Mr. Chairperson and distinguished members of the committee, I thank you for this opportunity to provide a presentation on Bill C-22, and the larger issue of child sexual abuse on the Internet. I have had the occasion to review some of the transcripts from the previous meetings, so my goal today is to provide insight and information that has not yet been presented, as well as to make a few clarifications and arguments in support of this new legislation.
The Canadian Centre for Child Protection will offer testimony today based on its role in operating Cybertip.ca, Canada's tip line to report online sexual exploitation of children, and based on its coordinating role with law enforcement and the public and private sectors in combatting online child victimization.
Cybertip.ca was established in 2002 in partnership with the Government of Canada, various provincial governments, a national law enforcement advisory committee, and a federal task force and steering committee.
Like other international hotlines, Cybertip.ca has analysts who are special constables who review, confirm, and triage reports to the appropriate law enforcement jurisdiction. This function permits the verification of the material as potentially illegal and identifies the appropriate jurisdiction, thereby saving very important time for Canadian law enforcement. In particular, the tip line accepts reports relating to child pornography, luring, child sex tourism, and children exploited through prostitution and child trafficking. The tip line is owned and operated by the Canadian Centre for Child Protection.
Since launching nationally, the tip line has received nearly 48,000 reports from the public regarding the online sexual exploitation of children, resulting in over 70 arrests by law enforcement and approximately 25 children being removed from abusive environments.
In 2009 our organization released a research report that provided an in-depth analysis of reports to Cybertip.ca. We have made the summary of that report available to you all this afternoon. It examined almost 16,000 child abuse websites, as well as over 4,100 unique images of child abuse, with the goal of providing an overview of the scope of the problem from the tip line's perspective.
As noted in previous presentations, the data from the report paint a sobering picture of the severity of this global problem. The reality is that 82% of the images analyzed depicted very young pre-pubescent children under the age of 12. Most concerning is the severity of the abuse depicted, with over 35% of all images showing serious sexual assaults. The report addressed the misconception that child pornography is really about young teens in provocative poses; rather, these images depict very young children, toddlers, and infants who are often being abused through vaginal, anal, and oral penetration, and in some instances including bondage and sadistic activities.
It is also important to note that these victims often are silenced because they are being abused by a person in a position of trust. Some of our youngest victims are pre-verbal and therefore unable to tell anyone. While information such as this is difficult to hear, it is more difficult to see, and worse to endure.
Some of the challenges in managing the proliferation of child abuse images on the Internet involve the transient nature of the material, and the challenge of identifying the victims and traders and collectors of the content.
Strategies to address this complex problem involve public education and disruption and enforcement tactics. In Canada, stakeholders in the area of child abuse images and material have made some significant inroads. Beyond our strong legislation, Canada's national strategy to protect children from exploitation on the Internet has provided a deliberate action plan to increase awareness, facilitate reporting, and support law enforcement efforts.
Additionally, it's very important to know that there has been longstanding collaboration from the private sector, most notably Canada's major Internet service providers. The Canadian Coalition Against Internet Child Exploitation, otherwise known as CCAICE, is a voluntary partnership between Cybertip.ca, law enforcement, and the private sector to address this problem. Through CCAICE, a number of important successes have been realized.
One example includes Cleanfeed Canada, which our organization operates. It's a solution to block access to foreign-based websites hosting child pornography. All of the major IPs participate in this program, and to date, over 11,357 unique URLs have been put on this list, blocking these sites from the view of the majority of Canadian citizens.
Similar to countries like Sweden, Denmark, and the United Kingdom, blocking initiatives are one part of the remedy.
After eight years of being directly engaged in the fight to eradicate the proliferation of online child pornography—
The Canadian Centre for Child Protection is aware that there is no easy single solution to this problem. To engage other private industry groups in this fight, we are working with the RCMP's National Child Exploitation Coordination Centre, our strategy partner, to establish a Canadian financial coalition against child pornography. This partnership of prominent financial institutions and payment companies will work to identify and eradicate the commercial market for online child abuse imagery in Canada. The goal is to follow the money and disrupt the economics of the commercial child pornography business and to shut down payment accounts used by these illegal entities. This is just another example of the type of cooperation that is necessary to address this complex issue.
We know that reporting is a key component of any country's successful strategy to combat the online sexual exploitation of children. The widespread circulation of child abuse images and the fact that these pictures are viewed, collected, and traded among offenders allow for Internet users to inadvertently come across this type of harmful content. The public nature of the Internet, combined with the viral nature of child pornography, offers the opportunity for the public and Internet service providers to report and assist in the detection of this material.
The results and impact of mandatory reporting are evident in other jurisdictions. Cybertip.ca is the designated reporting agency under Manitoba's mandatory reporting of child pornography legislation. A report that will be released publicly within a few weeks highlights the impacts and success of this legislation. In Manitoba public reporting increased by 126% in the first year that the legislation was enacted, when compared to the previous year. The goal of the legislation was to facilitate reporting and as a result protect children. Cybertip triaged reports, which resulted in 17 reports containing information related to an identified child victim or suspect in Manitoba being forwarded to a child welfare agency.
The complicated nature of the propagation of child abuse images on the Internet creates additional challenges for those working to combat this issue. On the one hand, we need to stop the sexual abuse of children in homes and in neighbourhoods. By doing so, we will stop the images from getting on the Internet to begin with. On the other hand, we must manage the proliferation of the imagery once on the Internet, which fuels demand, consumption, and the normalization of the sexualization and abuse of children.
Good legislation, adequate resources, global cooperation, technical solutions, and public education are key components to getting ahead of the problem. Mandatory reporting legislation removes the professional and personal dilemma of reporting. It clarifies and reinforces what the major Internet service providers are already doing and offers protection for appropriate action. Companies will also need to develop policies and train employees to help them understand their legal obligations. Through such action, these employees will have additional education and knowledge on the issue, which will impact attitudes and beliefs and ultimately better protect children.
Moreover, this legislation will ensure compliance by others in the industry, including content and hosting providers. Based on reports to Cybertip as of October 19, 2010, there are over 250 live URLs hosting child abuse images in Canada. While Canadian law enforcement agencies currently have the authority to take action in such situations, it is complex and often difficult. Under the new legislation, content providers would also be obligated to report child pornography on their services. This action would serve to ensure that proper and swift remedial action is taken, with penalties promoting compliance.
Legislation also becomes a deterrent and sends the message that Canada will not become a haven for child abuse images in websites. Those profiting from the abuse of children often deliberately move content to avoid detection.
Countries with strong legislation create a disincentive for those involved in providing access to the illegal material. Enacting mandatory reporting legislation demonstrates a cognizance that society as a whole has a moral obligation to protect its most vulnerable citizens and that this obligation is a legal onus on those providing an Internet service, should they come across the content.
In concluding, there is still much work to be done in examining ways that we can better protect children. However, this legislation will put Canada among only nine countries worldwide that meet criteria established by the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children, which examined existing child pornography legislation and agendas within nations. The report conducted research reviewing more than 196 countries around the world to examine existing legislation and to gauge where this issue stands on national political agendas. The issue of child abuse imagery and material is a global problem that requires strong and harmonized legislation between nations. Canada's leadership and decision to take this additional step sent a clear and strong message to its citizens and other countries that children are a national priority.
I thank you for this opportunity to present.
:
Here is a general question. Obviously we support this to the hilt; it's wonderful. The minister himself says it's a step in a process, so it isn't the end, but is part of the beginning, and we applaud you for your efforts.
My question is simple in words but hard to fathom. It's this: can this federal legislation be improved? Very cautious, erudite lawyers from the Department of Justice have told us that they want to impose a sanction on a duty that's universal to all Canadians and that hasn't to do with child and family services, which are, under the Constitution, certainly the domain of the provinces.
Do you see, however, that there is a broad duty on every citizen to report to the entity a child exploitation crime that is evidenced by child pornography in every instance? Do you see that as something that you'd like to see in federal legislation under the criminal power that the federal government has?
:
That's an important question. We wrestle with this in wanting to facilitate reporting. We are certainly passionate about making more people aware and reporting. The challenge we're running into, even on the provincial side and even in our relationship and partnership with Ontario and Alberta, is that the issue surrounding the identification potentially of a child and the role of child welfare within that equation presents a number of complications. Those departments have to be primed, educated, and aware and know what to do. I think the challenge, if there were a federal obligation that wide, would really be how we then properly prepare the front-line folks and individuals who are going to be responsible for it.
That's part one. Part two is part of what we're seeing, and you will see this in the research report. We received 48,000 reports. Of that number, only 44% were triaged and forwarded to police because they would be deemed potentially illegal. Of that 44%, only a much smaller number ended up actually going to Canadian law enforcement agencies, meaning that the majority of the content is hosted outside of Canada.
So to answer the question, it's hard for us to say how we would institute and manage something that was so broad as to apply to every citizen in Canada under federal legislation.
:
In terms of my earlier answer, really I can't speak to the powers of the criminal law spectrum and what we can do there.
It is important that we expedite and move quickly on this. I think this is good legislation. It is, as you've mentioned, sir, one piece of the puzzle.
I do think, though, that there is a reason why in provincial jurisdictions there is the responsibility for child welfare, which is more complex than simply taking in information. There is a whole different spectrum of proper training and evaluation and looking not just at maybe a child in a picture but the children within a home environment, other siblings, etc. They possibly would, and should, complement one another.
Thank you, Ms. McDonald and Ms. Milner and all of your colleagues, for the very good work you're doing to help keep our children and children from around the world safe from sexual exploitation.
I have a couple of questions for you. I really very much appreciated your presentation. Perhaps you could just tell us generally how you think this legislation that we're examining today will help reduce child sexual exploitation. And in answering that question, perhaps you could just describe for us why you use the term “child sexual exploitation”, as opposed to just “child pornography”, which I take it is the material itself.
Thank you so much for your presentation.
As my colleague Brian Murphy mentioned, we're very pleased to see the government finally come forward with legislation. It appears that the legislation is the right step in the right direction. It will not solve everything, and probably there will be a requirement later on for further legislative responses, but for now it is a good step forward.
I have basically two questions for you. Prior to Cybertip's existence, coming here as a Quebecker I'd never heard of you, so I'd like to know what work Cybertip has done in order to become known in Quebec to ordinary citizens who would then report directly to you. That's my first question.
Second, you were asked by one of the members of the committee whether the government has approached Cybertip.ca to be the organization that's mentioned in the legislation, and you said that it has not been approached. There are no negotiations going on. In that case, I want to ask Cybertip.ca, through you, what your competition would be, if any. What other organizations within Canada already carry out the same mandate that you do, to the same or a greater extent, and could be potential competitors?
My last question, because I had only three, was whether you have people among the 40 staff who are monitoring sites who are French.
:
Thank you for your questions.
Quebec is our second-largest reporting province, again in line with population. In fact, Cyberaide.ca is the branding and the tip line en français. We also have very close working relationships with the Sûreté du Québec and Montreal and Laval police, so we are carrying out public awareness campaigns in that province. As you know, the challenge is making sure that people are really paying attention and know who we are. We are very committed to raising awareness in that province, and we are actually exploring a partnership right now with the Montreal police service through which we will perhaps plant someone there and then go out and offer prevention and education within that province. That's my first answer.
In terms of the competition, we were set up to do this very specific and narrow function. I would argue that there is not an entity in Canada with the same capacity and capabilities. We have eight years under our belts now in terms of knowledge and experience. I would say that we are the logical agency. I'm hoping.
Finally, as mentioned, in terms of our reporting in Quebec, we deal with a lot of sites and reports that go into Quebec, whether they are websites, luring cases, or other things. So while we're not monitoring in that sense, we are still offering through Cleanfeed and through our normal reporting process those important services.
What happens is a person comes across what they believe to be potentially illegal or child pornography. They come to Cyberaide.ca. They go in. They fill up whatever information they have and know. We also accept anonymous reports. People come in, they fill it out. It's submitted. Within 48 hours our agency reviews all of the reports coming in, triages that information, and makes sure it gets into the hands of the appropriate police jurisdiction.
So we have two pieces to our mandate. One is making sure that reports go right to the appropriate law enforcement jurisdiction and swift action is taken. In the other we field direct telephone calls right across Canada, and we provide education and prevention. If a mother is concerned her daughter is communicating with someone on the Internet, we provide advice and information to families as well.
:
Well, thank you. That's better.
I want to first of all thank you for being here and for bringing us this evidence, because I think it's very important and I think what you've told us bears repeating and saying out loud: that 61% of all victims of sexual assault are children; that you monitored 4,110 images and that 82.1% of those images depict very young, prepubescent children under the age of 12; and that of those 4,110 unique images, over 35% actually depict sexual assaults against children.
So I say that even if there are people who might claim that crime rates are going down, these incidents are unacceptable. I'm just glad that the government is getting tough on these crimes.
I'm supposing that if I asked you whether you think the government is on the right track with this bill, the answer would be a resounding yes. Is that correct?
:
This is a huge question. I think most Canadian parents, especially those of teenagers, are being bombarded with so many issues. Our agency is equally committed to educating the Canadian public.
In terms of the whole issue concerning cellphones, we have a whole website called “textual education”, TextED.ca. Families can go in there and learn about texting. We have a site called “Mobile Safety” site. We have age-appropriate safety tips for all families, by which they can learn how to keep their kids safer.
One of the things we are really trying to educate parents on is that the way you deal with a young grade 6 or grade 7 child is going to be very different from the way you're dealing with your grade 11 or grade 12 child. So really, we've tailored the information to be appropriate and to give parents tools to navigate through this complicated space. We have a number of website resources.
I should note that last year we distributed 1.6 million pieces of educational material, to every school across Canada, in French and in English, and this was one of the issues we dealt with.
:
I reconvene the meeting.
I want to welcome to the table Ms. Catherine Kane, Mr. Normand Wong, and Mr. Jean-François Noël. Welcome back to our committee.
They are here as resource people if we have any questions regarding the bill; they're here representing the Department of Justice.
We're going to move to clause-by-clause consideration.
Pursuant to Standing Order 75(1), I'm going to postpone consideration of clause 1.
Mr. Lee.
In reading the bill, members will note that there's a difference in format between the English version and the French version of the definition of Internet service.
The French version—and I'm using my own English words to paraphrase it—refers to Internet “services”, meaning services of type A or B or C, but all of them being services.
The English version reads:
“Internet service” means Internet access, Internet content hosting or electronic mail.
There is no reference here to the “service” of Internet content hosting or “service” of Internet access, or, most importantly, the “service” of Internet mail. It simply says “electronic mail”. In my reading, as I mentioned at a previous committee hearing, this would implicate anybody who sends electronic mail, in contrast with what I think was intended and what the French version reads: anyone who provides electronic mail services. There's a difference between somebody who simply sends electronic mail and somebody who provides electronic mail services.
So my amendment would add the word “service” after the words “electronic mail” so that it reads “electronic mail service”.
To respond to Mr. Lee's concern, we have, as Mr. Dechert said, looked at the proposed wording and would suggest that perhaps the intent can be accomplished in a slightly different way.
The proposed motion adds the word “service” at the end, which would seem to just modify the term “electronic mail”. And if we were to propose wording that said “'Internet service' means a service providing Internet access, Internet content hosting or electronic mail”, it would cover all three as services. “A service means a service”--it seems a bit redundant, but it is clear, and it is consistent with the French.
We would suggest that would be an appropriate way to meet your objective in a manner that is appropriate drafting.
:
I will begin the response, and my colleagues may provide additional information.
With respect to the motion, as you know, the 21-day period was also the period of time that was reflected in former Bill C-46 and Bill C-47, introduced in the last Parliament. As our minister has indicated, the intention of the government would be to reintroduce, dealing with investigatory powers for police and so on. The consistency with the 21-day period was with respect to that period as well.
The other thing that we would note is that your motion proposes to change the 21-day period in subclause 5(1), but there is no similar proposal to change that 21-day period in subclause 5(2). That would need to be--
The 21-day period was identified by Ms. Kane as being consistent with former Bill C-46. In Bill C-46 it related to a preservation demand by a peace officer. Through the machinations of our policy development and legislative development, we've had discussion about the appropriateness of the time. That period of preservation would allow police, under former Bill C-46--and of course that's not law right now--either to obtain a preservation order under that bill to extend the preservation period or to obtain a production order or a search warrant to obtain those materials as evidence.
For us 21 days is, I think, still consistent. We've consulted with police forces across Canada in terms of the appropriateness of the time. In order to obtain a production order or a search warrant, they can go before a justice of the peace, and it's quite a rapid process. It doesn't have to be a lengthy process. They can normally get that 24 to 48 hours later. If they can get it in 24 to 48 hours, 21 days seems to be more than ample for them to be able to secure that information.
[English]
Bill imposes two duties on those who provide an Internet service to the public. First, under clause 3 providers are required to report, in effect, Internet address tips that they might receive regarding websites where child pornography may be available. In addition to that, under clause 4 providers are required to notify police if they have reason to believe that a child pornography offence has been committed using their Internet service. Of course, as we were discussing a moment ago, in that case they are also required by clause 5 to preserve the evidence for 21 days.
The clear intent of clause 10 is to avoid any duplicate reporting under clause 3 when a service provider has already reported the same incident under the laws of a province or of a foreign jurisdiction. However, under the current wording of clause 10, which deems that reporting to be compliance with the act, one could well be saying that this would relieve the provider of its obligation of notifying and of preserving evidence under clauses 4 and 5. That is not the government's intention.
The amendment is intended to replace the reference to the act with reference to section 3 of the act, and only deem that requirement to be satisfied in cases when reporting to a province or a foreign jurisdiction has occurred. That will make clear that it does not relieve the provider of compliance with clauses 4 and 5.
:
The extraterritorial applicability of this section would apply to them, but only to the extent of the information that they have. The duty under clause 4 to notify police arises when you have reasonable grounds to believe that a child pornography offence has been committed.
The way the couple of Internet service providers that are U.S.-based whom we've talked to are structured is that their servers are in the United States. Their corporate entity in Canada would probably never form the reasonable grounds to believe that a child pornography offence has been committed over their system until their parent company informed them. At that time, they'd be required to notify police. But really, the only information they would have is the e-mail notification that their parent company has it.
In the United States it works out well, because in the United States there is a mandatory reporting regime. The NCMEC, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, works hand in hand with the RCMP in Canada. It forwards any tips or any information it has to the RCMP in Canada.
:
Yes, I was carrying Derek's message on this.
I realize it's a bit odd to have the power to make regulations stunted like this, but I think Mr. Lee brought up some points that worried us: that perhaps paragraph 13(f), which is the general or the catch-all provision that's effectively being proposed for deletion here, might provide too much scope to provide by regulation the creation of a criminal offence, when we want to be very careful about what we're creating here.
I want, if I may, to ask the departmental officials to tell us how many acts like this, in which there is a section for regulations, don't have a general catch-all. Has it ever happened before?
:
Well, in acts that call for the promulgation of regulations by Governor in Council to shepherd the act to its intentions, when that happens usually they're specific—you know: “We will make regulations for specific aspects”—which is very clear from paragraphs (a) through (e) of clause 13. Those are very specific and unobjectionable; there's no way they could overstep the bounds of the act. But I think....
I served on the scrutiny of regulations committee for a year, a fascinating committee—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Brian Murphy: Why are people laughing at that? That's an amazing committee, because it shows you the power of regulations, and I think we have to be watchdogs concerning them—rendering homage to Derek Lee, who's been here 22 years, I think he said earlier.
If we took this out, I think it would be okay with me, because there's quite a bit of power in paragraphs (a) through (e).
So my question was does every act that has a subsection saying that regulations may be brought forward have the catch-all, which is the one I'm trying to get rid of?
:
I couldn't say whether every act has, but I could direct you to, for example, the Fisheries Act and the Environmental Protection Act—and we can provide you with copies of those—which have very similar provisions to paragraph (f), which is a more general clause.
I would also mention for your consideration that this provision is circumscribed in some way, because it says it's “for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this Act”. It's not a wide-open power to make regulations; it's only with respect to the provisions of this act. So wherever there are provisions in the act that don't refer to what's going to be set out in regulations, it's not going happen.
Regarding the concerns that were raised the other day about whether this could create new criminal offences, the Minister of Justice made it very clear that it would not happen. The regulation power is derived from this statute, and the purposes of this act are for the mandatory reporting of child pornography. So the regulations are going to deal with the agency that will receive those tips, the way the reporting is to occur, and so on.
This last provision is in case some of those other things aren't specific enough to cover the circumstances that arise. But it's not an invitation to change the purposes or the provisions of this act through regulations.
:
I understand that in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, the expression “
toute autre mesure” has a general meaning and it's not just that regulations can be made, because the intention is to take other measures as well.
But here, it seems the only power that is intended to be given, generally speaking, is the power to make regulations. The word “mesure” in French does not necessarily mean just regulations, while in English, clearly, it refers only to regulations.
I understand that there would be measures in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, because of the nature of the subject matter. The translators really are the experts. In my opinion, the translators at the Department of Justice are the best in the world in terms of translating from French to English, so they could certainly tell us.
:
I'm going to interrupt you right there, Ms. Kane. I do not appreciate your use of the term “other than stalling” or “outside of stalling this bill”--
Ms. Catherine Kane: I'm sorry. I apologize--
Hon. Marlene Jennings: I do not believe that any member on this committee dealing with this particular legislation or any other legislation that comes before us, whether it comes from the government or from an individual member, is interested in or has a goal of stalling legislation. When we ask questions, our questions are based on good faith. We are attempting, especially in the case of this legislation.... I think every member sitting around this table has made it very clear that we welcome this piece of legislation. We see it as a good step in the right direction. It is clearly not the answer-all and be-all to everything, but it is definitely a step in the right direction, and now our concern is not to stall it, but to get some clarification.
I understand that you may not have come here prepared for the question that I have asked or for the point that my colleague raised, and therefore the simple response would be “Yes, they do exist; yes, there have been cases in which regulations have been adopted under a provision like that under other legislation. I do not have the examples with me”, and leave it at that.
First, Mr. Lemay, if you read the preamble, you will see the words “par règlement”. Those words qualify the other words in this section. So the last section
[English]
only relates to regulation. I say this simply to reassure you on this point. I hope it does.
With respect to other issues, I would like to refer the committee to section 155 of the existing Youth Criminal Justice Act, which empowers the Governor in Council to make regulations. After two specific paragraphs--
After two specific sections it includes a clause that is exactly equivalent to the one before us today--that is, generally for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this act.
I was grateful to Mr. Lee for bringing this issue to our attention and specifically mentioning that this is criminal law legislation so we must be careful with regulations. I looked in other criminal law legislation, and I think we can agree that the Youth Criminal Justice Act is criminal law legislation.
I also want to commend Mr. Lee for having spent 22 years on the scrutiny of regulations committee and still having the brain cells to rub together to raise this issue. But I also want to point out that thanks to his efforts and the efforts of that committee, every regulation that does get promulgated under such authority as we are dealing with today is scrutinized to ensure that it is not ultra vires or unconstitutional in any fashion. That is the role of the scrutiny of regulations committee.
I am not asking that we search the whole history of regulations to see if one got through okay, but whether anyone knows of any regulation under section 155 of the Youth Criminal Justice Act that is unconstitutional and somehow escaped Mr. Lee's eagle eyes and those of his colleagues on the scrutiny of regulations committee. I have such confidence in Mr. Lee that I'm willing to stake money on the fact that there is no regulation under the Youth Criminal Justice Act that is unconstitutional and escaped the committee's justified scrutiny.
I also wish to refer to one other example in the way of criminal law jurisdiction, and that is the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which I hope we will all agree is a criminal law statute. Section 55 of that act says that the Governor in Council may make regulations for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this act; then it goes on to make 25 specific references, without limiting or restricting the generality of that.
Again it has substantially the same wording. It seems to me completely proper to include that, because we cannot predict every contingency. We try, but we cannot, in the end, being human, predict every contingency. Therefore these general clauses have been used for many years, to my knowledge. I would be willing to bet some of them were even in the legislation passed under the former Liberal government and accepted by them. We do rely on the scrutiny of regulations committee to ensure the constitutionality.
I have three points. I think Mr. Woodworth has done a very good job of pointing out that there are several criminal law statutes that use the exact or very similar phrasing. I have three more to suggest, which admittedly were not criminal law, and I'm happy to share the specific section references with Ms. Jennings and anyone else who is interested. I have the exact wording here on the BlackBerry.
There are two more important points, and one is simply that my recollection from 25 years of practice in law, which is slightly longer than Mr. Lee has been here in Parliament, is that there is a general rule of statutory interpretation that charging powers can only be in statutes and may not appear in a regulation where they are not specifically referenced in the charging powers in the legislation itself.
Secondly but more importantly, this whole bill is about Internet dissemination of child pornography that leads to sexual exploitation. We all know that Internet technology changes every single day. The people who put this heinous material out there on the Internet are constantly looking for another way to get around every law and every regulation so they can get it to the people who want to use it. We're here today to protect those children, to rescue them, and we don't want to hamstring the police authorities, the proper authorities, in their enforcement of this act because we have to come back to Parliament and pass another law to add something that could simply be added by regulation through this very general wording in the act.
:
Mr. Woodworth has done a good job of describing the background here. My purpose in raising it is that I think it should be raised where it comes up in any criminal or quasi-criminal statute--something we should advert to as legislators before we move it back to the House for passage.
This is a straight-line, straight-up criminal statute. That's how the government has described this. For example, in the regulations section, regulations can be made regarding the modalities of notification. It would be possible to make a regulation that restricted or enhanced the burden on the citizen--in fact, made it a trick notification on the citizen. All kinds of things can happen, even without the basket clause in paragraph 13(f). Mr. Woodworth points out that our law prevents using regulations to impose criminal burdens on citizens.
Ms. Kane referred to the Fisheries Act, and it is a fact that at the present time, in front of the Standing Joint Committee for Scrutiny of Regulations, there are provisions of the regulations that are being looked at for disallowance, precisely because the regulations have been used to create offences under the act.
I can't say that we should never enact this type of basket clause on a regulation-making power. At the time we pass the statute we should be getting the government to confirm that it won't be used to create a new criminal law or a new criminal burden. That's without prejudice to the use of the clause. I mean, the government has to do what the government has to do, but as legislators we have to deal with this.
If they pass the new regulation under this that says a breach of the regulations will constitute a breach of the act, how valid is that? Does a citizen always have to rely on Parliament to take care of this regulatory thing, because there are 1,200 regulatory instruments passed every year?
I'm not moving an amendment. I don't know how to restrict it, but I did want to hear from the government that the use of this clause is intended to be consistent with the way Ms. Kane described it and will not be used to create a new criminal burden on citizens.
:
The bill, properly described, although not very easily said in a soundbite, is “an act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service”. That's precisely what the bill does. It's very accurate. That's the formal title.
We've slipped away, it seems, from calling bills by their boring long titles like that, which are meant to be precise as to what they do, to these soundbite-driven phrases that perhaps mislead people and oversell what a bill's actually about.
This is a good bill. The minister himself said it's but a step in a process. The ladies here before from Cybertip.ca corroborated that. There's nothing wrong with this bill. To put it out there as a panacea, which I believe--this is a matter of subjective view--the short title does, Protecting Children from Online Sexual Exploitation Act, I think that's overreaching.
I guess I put it to my friends on the other side, why aren't we content with the actual title of the bill, or why don't we follow what other provinces have done? In two cases they have called it, so that people understand it better, the Child Pornography Reporting Act, because that's really what it is.
That's the nature of my amendment, short and sweet. I'll forewarn you that if this amendment doesn't pass, I for one shall be voting not to pass the short title part of this bill, because I'm content with the actual formal title.
That's my two bits. Thank you.
:
All right. Thank you, Mr. Murphy.
I have a ruling to read. I've consulted with our staff and I rule as follows.
The amendment seeks to amend the short title of the bill. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, states on pages 770-71:
The title may be amended only if the bill has been so altered as to necessitate such an amendment.
It's the opinion of the chair that there have been no amendments requiring a change to the bill's title. The amendment is therefore inadmissible.
Having heard my ruling, we'll move on to the question, if you don't mind.
(Clause 1 negatived)
The Chair: We're left, then, with the--
:
In illustrating the purpose of the long title, I'd like to refer to the short title, which, unfortunately, we didn't have an opportunity to discuss a moment ago.
The Canadian Centre for Child Protection was here today and gave us a very good presentation on why this bill is about more than simply the material of child pornography, why this is about protecting children both in Canada and around the world from sexual exploitation.
If my honourable friends opposite had taken the time to read the very good materials that were presented by the centre, they would have seen the term “sexually exploited children” used in virtually every line, phrase, and recommendation of the report.
I asked Ms. McDonald why she used that term, why she didn't simply refer to child pornography. And she made a very good and very fulsome argument about how the actual material itself leads to the exploitation and abuse of children.
This bill is about more than just restricting a picture. This bill is about putting in place criminal provisions and sanctions against people who use this material and who therefore may actually be abusing the children in order to create this material. We want to be able to use this legislation to rescue children who can be identified by the images that are disseminated on the Internet. We want to be able to prevent other children who have not yet been abused from being abused, because the people who get this material, who see other children being abused, might get the idea that maybe somehow that's okay. That's what this is about. And that's why this bill had the proper short title, Protecting Children from Online Sexual Exploitation Act. For the life of me, I can't understand why any reasonable person would object to that.
Thank you.
:
I'll try to be brief too. I know we want to wrap this bill up today, and we don't, and I don't, want to extend this.
As much as I could agree with a lot of what Mr. Dechert and Mr. Woodworth have said, if it was just this one bill, fine, but the speech writers and slogan guys in your backrooms have preceded you.
We are supposed to be adopting a short title, not a big long paragraph commercial. This is supposed to be a short title. I will just refer members to other legislation we now have in front of us.
Bill , the long title is “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for fraud)”. The short title is called—believe it or not, this is supposed to be short—“Standing Up for Victims of White Collar Crime Act”. This is how the bill is expected to be cited by people in courts of law, and the short title is actually not very short.
And as if to really, really cap this, Bill , which is simply called “An Act to amend the Criminal Code”, the government drafters have walked away from the short title, which is what we normally do—give it a short title so people can refer to it. They now describe Bill —go check it out—with an alternative title. Why do we need an alternative title? It now reads, “This Act may be cited as the Ending House Arrest for Property and Other Serious Crimes by Serious and Violent Offenders Act”. How short is that?
So I am sorry, but in this particular Parliament, it is my hope that members, legislators, will grab hold of this—the attempt to torque the short title of a bill for a political purpose—and bring the thing back to a normal level where we can have a nice, clean, accurate short title.
That is why Mr. Murphy took the approach he did, and that's the approach I'm going to be taking in the future. And we'll have a chance to debate this again probably.
:
All right, we have a question, if someone wants to call the question. You can't call the vote in that sense, but I will call the question.
Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill as amended carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the chair report the bill as amended to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the committee order a reprint of the bill as amended for the use of the House at report stage?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you, everybody.
The meeting is adjourned.