Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 21 - Evidence for February 17, 2011
OTTAWA, Thursday, February 17, 2011
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-22, An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service, met this day at 10:37 a.m. to give clause-by-clause consideration to the bill.
Senator Joan Fraser (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, welcome. As you know, the agenda today consists of clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-22, An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service.
We have heard a number of witnesses on this bill. However, before I ask you to proceed to clause-by-clause, there is one last submission that I will read into the record so that all colleagues have the benefit of it. This is a submission that came in this morning from Mr. Michael MacKay, the expert witness who appeared before us last night. In this context, I am sure you will join with me in thanking the interpreters for what has to be an even more complicated than usual task of translating some of the technical jargon that we have heard.
Mr. MacKay has written to us as follows:
During my appearance before the Committee on 16 February 2011, I was asked what was wrong with making ISPs have a special requirement to report IP addresses and URLs. The short answer is there is nothing wrong with that but that we can go much further and, in the process, make the matter simpler. The provinces of Manitoba and Nova Scotia already have legislation in place and Alberta has a bill on this subject, all with wording similar to this: "Any person who has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that a representation or material is child pornography shall immediately report the matter to a reporting entity." This language frees us from trying to determine who is an ISP and it speeds up the process. Since law enforcement is going to have to process the information anyways, we should try to get the data (the child pornography image) and metadata (the IP address and the URL) to them right away instead of going through an ISP (if you can figure out who the ISP is, that is).
I have also tried to dispel the notion that ISPs have a special or privileged knowledge that is not available to all users of the Internet. The Internet is more of a conversation between equals than it is users being told what to do by ISPs. While not every user of the Internet has great technical knowledge, this is not necessary for fulfilling every citizen's duty to report the instances of child pornography when they come across them."
That is the submission from Mr. MacKay.
We have just received a submission from Facebook, from someone who had been received before the committee as a witness. This is very late in the day, colleagues. It is a short, one-page, three-paragraph submission. Do you wish to wait until we can have that printed out and see it, or are you willing to proceed on the basis of what we have already heard? I am in your hands.
Senator Angus: Proceed.
Some Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: We will, of course, circulate the submission from Facebook.
Senator Joyal: Can we have it printed?
The Chair: We shall have it printed.
Senator Munson: It is too bad it was not Twitter.
The Chair: Should it contain material that affects our view of the bill, there is, of course, always the third-reading phase at which that can be addressed.
Finally, honourable senators, I would ask you all to use, as you consider this bill, the version passed by the House of Commons on December 3 because, as we know, there has been more than one version of this bill.
[Translation]
Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-22, An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
The Chair: Is everyone in agreement? Carried.
[English]
Shall the title stand postponed? Agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Abstentions? Carried.
Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
[Translation]
Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
[English]
Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
[Translation]
Shall clause 4 carry?
[English]
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried, on division.
Shall clause 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Shall clause 6 carry?
Senator Joyal: On division.
The Chair: Clause 6 is carried, on division.
[Translation]
Shall clause 7 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 8 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
[English]
Shall clause 9 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 10 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
[Translation]
Shall clause 11 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 12 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
[English]
Shall clause 13 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
[Translation]
Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Carried on division.
[English]
Does the committee wish to append observations to the report?
Senator Wallace: Yes, I have a comment on that.
The Chair: Senator Wallace, normally we would go in camera to discuss observations. Do you wish us to discuss observations?
Senator Wallace: We could do that in camera, thank you.
The Chair: Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: We will ask non-staff of members of this committee to please leave this room.
(The committee continued in camera).