Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for having come here this morning to discuss a topic that seems simple at first sight, but that is quite complex. I share Ms. Jennings' sentiments when she says that we have to bring ourselves up to date, that we have to move into the 21st century, the technological age. We have no choice. Even if we wanted to, we know that it is out of our control. Things move in all different directions on the web or via other technologies and we have no control over it.
I am quite concerned. It is all very well for us to pass a series of regulations, but, as Mr. Walsh said, we have neither the means nor the tools to control what happens on all the search engines. Even the police and the RCMP cannot detect sexual predators, for example. That is the difficulty we face. If we establish tighter regulations and stricter rules, we will have to give ourselves control mechanisms so that we can surf too, and react to each complaint and lay contempt charges and so on. We would make things difficult to manage for the people who would be looking after those activities.
Parliament is a public place and, if we make our proceedings and our discussions more and more accessible, we may also be able to have an indirect impact on people and interest them in politics. When Mr. Mayrand came to see us this week, I was struck by his remarks about the lack of interest in exercising their right to vote shown by Quebeckers and Canadians. He had a number of recommendations, including using the web as a tool to attract young people. They are more connected than you or I and they use the web everyday. If a Chief Electoral Officer is thinking of using the web to get young people to vote, we can think of making our proceedings accessible too.
This debate today notwithstanding, there has been more and more manipulation since the Internet has been in existence. You can take a photograph of a Member of Parliament or a public figure, you can change his nose, or put it at different angles. That is life and we have to get used to it. If an MP's words are changed, or if he is made to say things that are really unacceptable, there has to be some way for the MP at least to remove the words that have been attributed to him or to complain.
Like Ms. Jennings, I would tend to have some trust and to hope that the proceedings would be used in good faith. Mr. Guimond shares my view on the matter.
In the last general election, we were surprised to see things posted on party websites that were unacceptable. Subsequently, they were taken down. “Boys will be boys“ is not a sexist comment, it applies to girls too. We all know that abuses can occur. There were abuses before our debate today and there will always be abuses. But I rather like the idea of giving people wider access to our proceedings. We will have to establish rules so that we have some recourse and that remarks can be withdrawn after they have been broadcast and pointed out.
As for this case of the site that used discussions back in 2006, that organization clearly made unauthorized use of the information.
Mr. Walsh, even though we are beginning a process of modifying the regulations today, what are we going to do about that organization? No question of privilege has been raised. What will happen to this organization under our old regulations?