Bill C-58 (Historical)

Child Protection Act (Online Sexual Exploitation)

An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service

This enactment imposes reporting duties on persons who provide an Internet service to the public if they are advised of an Internet address where child pornography may be available to the public or if they have reasonable grounds to believe that their Internet service is being or has been used to commit a child pornography offence. This enactment makes it an offence to fail to comply with the reporting duties.

Child Protection Act (Online Sexual Exploitation)

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I will stop the hon. member there to allow enough time for the member for Moncton to respond. He has 30 seconds left.

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know. To hold the government to two speeches for the full layout of the bill, I do hope there is more to come. That is why we have committees. We will be asking those questions at committee.

However, it is passing strange that this bill is not in the Criminal Code and that the precise amount of allotment for this bill is not defined. For pornography, and child pornography in general, there might be an amount needed and it would be well spent of course, but we will find out.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Mississauga South, Natural Resources.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of my party to Bill C-58. I will say from the outset that the bill, on the surface, seems extremely interesting. We will support it in order that it may be sent to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to be studied closely.

It is time for Canada, and Quebec in particular, to get with it when it comes to dealing with crime and to take measures to deal with crimes that are on the rise, namely child pornography and pedophilia. These are what I would call heinous crimes that are committed by people—and that is the problem with this type of crime, so I will choose my words carefully—in secret. In other words, an individual, sitting alone at his computer, can visit pornographic sites that post heinous material, namely pornography and pedophilia. These are things we never used to encounter.

This is the 21st century and no one could have anticipated these problems when the Criminal Code was first written. However, when the Criminal Code was amended recently, we started to take note of this new type of crime that has appeared in the past 10 or 15 years. It is a new form of insidious crime that is very difficult to get a handle on. We will nevertheless try to put a stop to it, but we need the means to do so.

This is a crime that is committed in solitude. The individual, in their secret hideaway, in their house, in their bedroom or even at their office—we know that some people have done this at work—visits pornographic sites.

I think it is important to provide a definition at this stage because we will do so with this bill. I am referring to section 163 of the Criminal Code, which will be clarified as follows:

“computer data” means representations, including signs, signals or symbols, that are in a form suitable for processing in a computer system.

With respect, this is truly a totally new area of law. We are wading into something completely new.

We are going to amend subsections 161.1, 161.2, 161.3 on the definition of pornography, the distribution of pornography, the possession of child pornography and accessing child pornography.

However, things get very interesting when we get into a new debate, a new area of law. It is very interesting. I will read clause 3 of the bill slowly to be sure that the interpreter can translate it well.

If a person is advised, in the course of providing an Internet service to the public, of an Internet Protocol address or a Uniform Resource Locator—

This is also known as a URL and is referred to as such in the French version of the legislation. I will continue.

—where child pornography may be available to the public, the person must report that address or Uniform Resource Locator to the organization designated by the regulations, as soon as feasible and in accordance with the regulations.

Quite honestly, I am somewhat concerned about all of this. It seems a little complicated to me. It is going to be implemented. I hope and pray that this will not turn into another gun registry because that would be catastrophic.

Clause 4 reads as follows:

If a person who provides an Internet service to the public has reasonable grounds to believe that their Internet service is being or has been used to commit a child pornography offence, the person must notify an officer, constable or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace of that fact, as soon as feasible and in accordance with the regulations.

The system is based on reporting. In my opinion, there comes a point when we have to implement harsh measures. Child pornography is unacceptable, and nobody in the House will stand for it. Abusing kids who are just five, six or seven years old, or younger still, is unacceptable debasement.

As I said before, this form of debasement has been allowed to proliferate over the years because we have not had the means to stop it. I hope that this bill and the amendments to the Criminal Code will help us identify these users.

Increasing the likelihood of getting caught is a much greater deterrent than increasing punishments, which often seem remote and abstract. That is exactly what this bill will accomplish. We have to send a clear message to all pornographers. Words cannot describe the loathsome individuals who participate in child pornography. Their behaviour is unacceptable. We have to send them the message that from now on, chances are they will get caught.

Here is an analogy. Giving people a $2,000 fine if they are caught driving while impaired will not stop people from driving their cars. The real deterrent is the risk of getting caught and dealing with the consequences of impaired driving. Imposing fines and minimum prison sentences is not that effective.

There has been a decrease in prison sentences and impaired driving cases, but it is the fear of getting caught that greatly encourages people to be careful and avoid drinking. Many people drink less and spend less time in bars. That is the objective of the bill. That is one of the reasons why the Bloc will support it. However, I have a few questions. Of course, I will ask them in committee. In fact, I hope that we will be able to study the bill very early in the new year.

The bill covers more than ISPs, or Internet service providers. That means that the bill covers more than Bell and Rogers. That is when things get interesting. The bill will cover anyone who offers Internet services to the public. That may include all small sized companies. That could include people who have servers in their basement. I will chose my words carefully. I do not mean to say that aboriginal communities have the kind of servers, but there are aboriginal communities that receive all poker games controlled from Kahnawake. If we include everybody who host Internet sites, we cover much more than Bell. That would include anyone who offers Internet services to the public, hence, anyone who hosts that kind of Internet sites.

This also includes Internet service providers, as well as those providing email services, host services and social networking sites on the Internet. Consider for example all the users of Twitter and Facebook around the world.

Let us use the example of the hon. member for Bourassa, who has I do not know how many friends on Facebook. Of course, I do not doubt his honesty. I am merely giving an example.

One of his Facebook friends could tell him to look at a particular site, because it has something interesting on it. We are not talking fiction here; we are not in a movie. This is real life. That is how these networks work. Someone sends a message to someone else, telling him or her to go to a particular site. For example, someone who is looking for a $4,000 bicycle might be told to try eBay.

Getting back to my example of the fine member for Bourassa, who has at least 7,000 Facebook friends, if one of those people recommends visiting a site of some interest, the fine member for Bourassa would be obligated to report it.

That is what is extremely important about this bill. That must stop. Such things can no longer be accepted. We must ensure that these people are not given special privileges, people who, under the pretext of helping someone, recommend sites. I hesitate to even use the word “help”. Child pornography, which victimizes children aged five, six, seven or eight years old, is completely unacceptable. It makes no sense and is unacceptable. Pornography in general is probably unacceptable for some, but child pornography is particularly offensive. And it is our duty to protect children and minors.

I would like to repeat what I said a few moments ago, to make sure I did not make any mistakes:

The Bloc Québécois believes that Increasing the likelihood of getting caught is a much greater deterrent than increasing punishments, which often seem remote and abstract.

A lot of Canadians are connected to the Internet and visit websites like Facebook and Twitter. If they receive a message like I mentioned earlier, or if someone suggests that they visit a website of interest, it is clear that there will be an obligation to report. That is exactly what clause 4 of the bill states:

If a person who provides an Internet service to the public has reasonable grounds to believe that their Internet service is being or has been used to commit a child pornography offence, the person must notify... as soon as feasible—

Therefore, those responsible for these networks, the service providers, and I think, especially, the users will have to report. It is not illegal to visit Twitter, to have friends on Facebook, or to use Google. There is nothing illegal about that. With Bill C-58, what will become illegal will be visiting child pornography sites and encouraging others to visit them.

Even as a criminal lawyer, I can say that this is a good bill. It is about time. It is a good bill to amend the Criminal Code.

First the compliments, now the criticisms. It is all well and good to pass new laws, but we must also develop the means to enforce them.

That is of great concern to me. Something was brought to our attention in recent days when we learned that the bill was coming. A number of people began to wonder about our ability to deal with the information that will be reported, and thus to investigate and file charges. We have been told that, in Canada, no more than 300 police officers currently monitor Internet sites and carry out related duties. They answer inquiries, conduct investigations and, generally, lay charges. We have seen and continue to see this every day in different media when charges are laid against pedophiles.

We have been told that once the bill is in effect, in its first or second year, there will be so much information that is stored, or provided or sent to people such as the police that they will not be able to do the work and will run the risk of missing a number of pedophiles who visit these sites.

That is the fear of the Bloc Québécois and we will certainly be asking these questions when the minister or his representatives appear before us. We will probably also call the Solicitor General and the Minister of Public Safety before the committee. We have to give the legislation legs to stand on. It is all well and good to introduce a bill, to fight child pornography and to want to eradicate it, but we have to give police the means to deal with the needs and the complaints as well as the resulting summons. We only need to examine the requirements of the bill. I will read just section 5:

A person who makes a notification under section 4 must preserve...

Those who provide information have obligations. I will continue:

...must preserve all computer data related to the notification that is in their possession or control for 21 days after the day on which the notification is made.

It is beginning to pose a few difficulties. I will continue with subsection 5(2) of the bill:

The person must destroy the computer data that would not be retained in the ordinary course of business and any document that is prepared for the purpose of preserving computer data under subsection (1) as soon as feasible after the expiry of the 21-day period, unless the person is required to preserve the computer data by a judicial order made under any other Act of Parliament or the legislature of a province.

In plain English, it boils down to one thing: before we pass this bill, we must ensure that our police forces have what they need to enforce it. We cannot adopt this type of bill, implement it and then see how things go. We cannot and that is our main concern.

I will close by saying that when a bill responds to society's needs, the Bloc Québécois supports it. We believe that the bill responds to the needs of society, of Canada in general, and of Quebec in particular, and we will therefore support the bill.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, we have heard reports of exponential growth in child pornography over the last four years. We have a government that sat around for four years and did not really do anything about this issue and now introduces a bill that some would question whether it should be part of the Criminal Code.

If this problem is increasing in exponential fashion, would the Bloc member not think that perhaps some of the solutions that some other countries are using might be relevant? The Liberal member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe mentioned that Sweden has a blocking of child pornography and that Brazil has set up ethical rules. However, in the European Union, he said that Germany had the best set of rules and that it blocked access to the sites. Perhaps that may be the answer here if this problem is really becoming out of control.

I would ask the member what he thinks about those ideas raised by the member for the Liberal Party?

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague's suggestion is interesting. I did not hear what the hon. member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe said, but given that he sits on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, this proposal will obviously surface again. I do find it quite interesting.

Not only do I find it interesting, but I truly believe that it should be implemented at least at the outset. What I had suggested and what we will suggest, is that the bill be studied and, before it is passed, that a means to block these pornographic sites be put in place. As soon as this kind of site is detected, it must be blocked. When a site is detected that originates in Germany, England, New Zealand, Malaysia or elsewhere, it must be blocked. Then we will prosecute those who visit these sites.

I personally believe that we should establish a police unit from the outset. Child pornography units have been set up by a number of police forces. I think it would be of interest to start putting in place such units. Since the bill has already been introduced, it will go to committee in a few months. I feel that this bill should be studied rather quickly. The government should already be preparing to put in place a structure to enforce the legislation.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his analysis of the bill. It is clear that his expertise in criminal law really came through in his analysis.

He raised clause 5 and clause 5(2) talks about a 21 day period where an Internet service provider would need to report and that within 20 days, if there has not been an order for it to save the information it has, it would need to destroy it. The member talked about the problem this would pose for law enforcement, the problem of resources, and whether it could adequately investigate within this 21 day period.

I must admit that when I read this clause I felt like the government was saying that we would never get to it in 21 days so we need to have some kind of mechanism to deal with this information. It struck me as very odd. I would like to hear from the member some further thoughts on this particular clause and what the 21 day period is about.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we do not want a company, for example, Bell, a service provider, to have to keep a high volume of documents or information on its hard drives or elsewhere. According to clause 4:

If a person who provides an Internet service...has reasonable grounds to believe...the person must notify an officer...as soon as feasible—

Clause 5 states:

A person who makes a notification under section 4 must preserve all computer data...for 21 days—

It goes without saying that if the government is talking about a 21 day period, it must be expecting an increase in demands for investigation and analysis. That is why I am repeating that before we implement this bill, we must do everything we can to ensure we are able to meet that 21 day deadline.

I can assure my colleague that that is one of the questions I will ask when the minister appears before us. I would like to know where the 21 days came from, and what it actually means. If it is in the bill, that means that it becomes a prerogative. It cannot be ignored. It will allow companies to destroy these documents, as described in subclause 5(2).

After reading the bill, we feel that the reason for the famous 21 day period is to avoid overtaxing computer networks.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the presentation given by the hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue. As we have seen with all the justice bills introduced by this government, there seems to be a gap between the legislation and the resources needed to achieve the objectives of said legislation. We have seen the cuts made by this government in the area of crime prevention, the cuts to police forces and compensation for police officers. In all those areas, the reality is that there is a difference between what the government is saying and what it is doing.

I think this bill really does correspond to a legitimate concern people have. It is unfortunate that Canada ranks second in the world when it comes to child abuse. We are not seeing any additional resources to follow through on this legislation.

Does the member believe that the government intends to allocate the resources needed to really tackle these crimes?

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. The government needs to get serious. I suggest that my colleague take a look at clause 12 of the bill, which is very clear. I will read it:

A prosecution for an offence under this Act cannot be commenced more than two years after the time when the act or omission giving rise to the prosecution occurred.

This means that before implementing the bill, we need the necessary means in place to implement and enforce it. If not, then because of the two-year time limit, if we have not done the work properly or put the legislation together well, criminals will slip through the cracks.

It is clear that before implementing such a bill, we will urge the government to be extremely prudent and to ensure that all of the means are in place to enforce this legislation, or Canada will continue to be a laughingstock. Canada will not be able to enforce its own law. The government will amend section 163 of the Criminal Code, and nobody will be able to enforce it because police services will not be able to do what we are asking them to do.

I think that the government has to be prepared to take drastic action, because according to what we have been told, thousands of complaints could be filed over the next two years.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill C-58, An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service.

As we heard earlier today, the bill would force an Internet service provider to report an Internet protocol address or a uniform resource locator if the ISP, the Internet service provider, is aware that this address may be used for the purposes of committing a child pornography offence. It says that the ISP needs to report it as soon possible and that, following reporting, the ISP must preserve all computer data related to the notification for 21 days.

Criminal Code reform or any kind of reform dealing with law within the criminal realm, whether it is dealt with through regulations or civil law, calls for a fact based appraisal of the present situation, as well as a very careful assessment of whether proposed reforms will actually enhance the objectives of what we say is the realm of criminal law or the criminal justice system.

One needs to answer some very important questions, and there are three in particular that I will note: first, what are we trying to accomplish; second, are the proposed reforms likely to make our communities safer; and, third, do we actually need this legislative change?

I will begin with the first question. What are we trying to accomplish? This bill is trying to accomplish the protection of children from online sexual exploitation. This is very much a laudable goal. I would point out that this is something we stand behind and action on this issue in the House is a long time coming.

In fact, the NDP introduced a bill about Internet luring in 2006 in the 39th Parliament. My colleague, the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore, introduced the bill. The purpose of that bill, which was then Bill C-214, was to prevent the use of the Internet to unlawfully promote, display, describe or facilitate participation in unlawful sexual activity involving young persons. That was in 2006 and I congratulate my colleague from Sackville—Eastern Shore for introducing the bill and turning the attention of the House to this very important issue.

Here we are in 2009, on the doorstep of 2010, and this is the first time we are seeing a bill that would deal with Internet child pornography. I extend congratulations to the government for finally waking up to this serious issue, an issue that impacts the health and safety of all communities in Canada.

The next question I would like to address in our analysis of this bill is: Are the proposed reforms likely to make our communities safer? This is the crux of the issue and I believe the answer requires a bit of nuance thinking and real analysis.

First, let me be clear that action on child pornography is critical, and this cannot be stated enough. Child pornography is wrong, it is criminal and we must work to stop it. Is this the best way to approach Internet pornography? Is this the best way to stop the exploitation of children online? I believe there is some merit to this bill, no doubt, but I am really struck by what is not in the bill.

The bill states that Internet service providers must report to police when their addresses are being used for child pornography. However, I think we also need to consider how we will deal with ISPs that do not co-operate with this mandate. I think we can go further when it comes to the duty and onus that is placed on ISPs.

ISPs have the information. This is how investigative officers can get information about the identities of people who are involved in putting child pornography online. I look forward to hearing from witnesses at committee about this aspect of the bill. What can we do to put an additional onus on ISPs that do not co-operate? What other provisions can be put in place?

What is obviously missing from this bill are the resources. What does it mean to report child pornography when there are no resources, human, financial or structural, to do anything about it? I had a discussion earlier with my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue. There is a provision in the bill to deal with a scenario of an ISP reporting online child pornography and then after 21 days having to dispose of the information if it has not been asked to protect it by judicial order. I imagine that this will be the case very frequently, that the 21 day period will pass with very little, if any, action in most cases because our police officers do not have the resources to deal with online child pornography. They know it is out there. We all know it is out there.

In doing research for this speech, I learned not to put online child porn in a search engine because I was assaulted with the findings. Police know it is out there. Communities know it is out there. Parents know it is out there. How do we investigate it when there is only one person, at best, per station who is charged with the task of actually investigating online child porn?

The bill needs resources. It needs a task force of investigators, a task force that can develop expertise in investigating, in pursuing and in prosecuting.

Earlier this year, the University of Toronto, which has a Centre for Innovation Law and Policy, held a symposium on online child exploitation. David Butt, a trial lawyer in Toronto who was mentioned in the House earlier in the debate, spoke about the issue of child pornography investigations. I would like to read from the abstract of his presentation because it sums up some of the issues facing us when we are considering online child porn. In the abstract, he wrote:

Traditionally, prosecutors and police conducting internet child exploitation cases worked at the practical intersection of many different fields of expertise: law, child-oriented social work, pedophilia as a psychiatric phenomenon, and of course criminal investigations. The recent explosion of internet related child exploitation has obliged prosecutors and police to draw as well from various technological disciplines, international commerce, international relations, and a host of disciplines that examine the social impact of the emerging cyber-world. This is a daunting task for prosecutors and police, and illustrates well the radical change in the face of child exploitation that the internet has wrought. We are not far along in adjusting to this radical change. Success in addressing internet child exploitation will arrive only through creative multi-faceted responses that mirror the multifaceted nature of the internet itself.

I think the most important part of that abstract is the statement:

Success in addressing Internet child exploitation will arrive only through creative multi-faceted responses that mirror the multifaceted nature of the internet itself.

We have an expert on this issue saying that we need a creative approach to this issue and yet the response in this House by the government is brief and empty, and I fear that it is truly meaningless. We need meaningful action on child pornography.

Reporting is absolutely key but it is only the first step. We need serious attention to resources in order to stop this terrible crime.

Earlier today I was talking about this bill with my colleagues and the member for Hamilton Centre raised a very good point. He said, and I agree with him, that he was sick and tired of bills like this that the government trots out in an attempt to make it look like it cares about children when yesterday we recognized that it was 20 years ago that this House made a commitment to end child poverty in Canada. Here we are 20 years later and we do not consider giving kids a safe place to live, enough food, early childhood education or any of the things that we need to actually ensure children are healthy and safe in this country.

The only thing the bill would do is introduce mandatory reporting. What about real action to ensure our kids are safe? We purport to do things like in 1989, the unanimous House of Commons vote to end child poverty; i the Convention on the Rights of the Child was ratified by federal, provincial and territorial governments in 1999; in 1997, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples set a target to close the economic gap by 50%; and in 2005, the first ministers meeting on aboriginal affairs in Kelowna.

Here we are though with very little to show for it. All we have are terrible statistics like those that follow.

Between 1989 and 2008, the number of children in Canada relying on food banks grew from 151,000 to 260,000. Children are disproportionately dependent on food banks.

The average low income family lives far below the poverty line. Low income, two parent families would, on average, need an extra $9,400 a year to bring their incomes up to the poverty line, to the low income cutoff.

We have also completely abandoned aboriginal children when it comes to poverty, and also when it comes to sex crime issues. Somehow when we think about what is happening with aboriginal girls, we imagine them as being involved in the sex trade, but that is not right. They are not involved in the sex trade. It is sexual exploitation. It is child trafficking. It is the luring of aboriginal girls from their communities to cities where they are sexually exploited, and it happens because these girls are poor and forgotten.

This is a pretty sad legacy and it is part and parcel of the total lack of real action on online child pornography. It is my hope that we will have witnesses come to committee who will shed light on how we can take real action on Internet child pornography.

Perhaps we will have some witnesses from the Canadian Professional Police Association, which has said time after time that the police lack the resources for effective and meaningful crime investigations. The association has stood up publicly and called the government on its reneging on the promise for more officers and resources for police.

In a brief to the Standing Committee on Finance in 2008, the Canadian Professional Police Association spoke to this very issue of resources. I would like to read from that brief:

[The Prime Minister] launched the Conservative Party's Stand Up for Security plan during the 2006 Federal Election campaign, which included a promise to “negotiate with the provinces to create a new cost-shared program jointly with provincial and municipal governments, to put at least 2,500 more police on the beat in our cities and communities”.

In April, 2006, [the Prime Minister] came to speak to our association, and promised our delegates that his government would put in place a new cost sharing program with the provinces and municipalities to increase the number of police officers in our communities....

Our member associations feel betrayed by the government's failure to deliver upon this key election promise. We are calling on Parliament to reinforce the program commitment and design in the 2009 Federal Budget, in order to address these shortcomings.

The association feels feel betrayed. These experts in policing say they do not have enough boots on the ground. I very much look forward to their testimony on this bill to see if they think that a mandatory reporting mechanism is enough. I also look forward to hearing from other experts on online child pornography issues.

We have looked at the questions of what we are trying to accomplish and whether the proposed reforms are likely to make our communities safer. The third question that we need to answer is, do we need this legislation? Well, maybe.

One thing I know for sure is that we need more than what this bill is providing, if we are actually going to address the issue of online child pornography.

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from the NDP for her remarks, which showed some of her reservations about this bill. That is all right. Sometimes when governments bring forward bills, the opposition tend to say, “Our job is to critique them”, and we look forward to the NDP doing that.

It is a great day when we see legislation like this being brought forward. It reminds me of a number of years ago when, as the Speaker will remember, we had a large man in this House by the name of Myron Thompson from Wild Rose. His seat was just a little bit from mine. I remember he would stand to protect our children, which was a passion of his. He would stand and speak with the most eloquence and passion in defence of these young children, in many cases babies. Police forces, such as the Toronto Police Service, had brought forward the issue to him and he was an ambassador for the protection of children. Thus when we have a bill like this, I am certainly reminded of Myron Thompson.

The last statistical data we have in regard to child pornography are from 2007. During that year, there were over 1,400 reported child pornography incidents, of which 440 resulted in charges.

The government has always been bringing forward legislation that would protect the most vulnerable. In the remarks by the New Democratic member, she said she was not sure that mandatory reporting was enough. We can certainly look at more. However, time after time when we bring forward this legislation, we watch as the opposition votes against it, stalls it here, and stalls it in that other place. Therefore, I am encouraged when I hear something positive said about this bill.

She asked whether it was enough and if we needed it and responded, “Well, maybe”. I do not think there should be any “Well, maybe” about this. We need these kinds of steps and I commend the justice minister for bringing this bill forward. If we do not need it when we have 1,400 incidents reported in a year, I ask my colleague how many incidents she wants to wait for before she knows that we need it.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague did say that “We need these kinds of steps”, but the one problem with that statement was that it was plural. There are no steps here. There is one very tiny step toward mandatory reporting, and if we only have 440 charges, that is a very serious problem.

I would point out that the Centre for Innovation Law and Policy at the University of Toronto, which I referred to earlier, has a white paper entitled, “Staying safely connected: Updated strategies for protecting children and youth from exploitation online”, and they have some really wonderful recommendations.

In particular, they have recommendations about policing. They talk about police training regarding online meeting crimes and child pornography. They talk about having special prosecutors with experience in prosecuting these crimes. That would be quite fantastic, would it not?

They are the ones who should be handling these cases to make sure that the evidence is very clear to judges, to the judiciary, because it is pretty technical. For instance, what is an ISP? We heard a lot about the member for Bourassa's Facebook friends, and I do not even know if any judges in my province are friends on Facebook.

The centre also suggests collaboration with industry.

These are some really sound suggestions coming from this law and policy group or centre, and these are really the steps, plural, that we should be taking.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Halifax for outlining some of the good things in the bill, but some of the challenges as well. I want to touch on a couple of points the member mentioned.

She mentioned the fact that when we are talking about children in this context, often we are talking about prostitution or other aspects, and that we ignore the sexual exploitation of children. I know that in the other house, Senator Dallaire has an committee talking about sexual exploitation of aboriginal youth and that the committee is looking at how it is that despite law enforcement and prevention, young men and women end up being sexually exploited. That committee has been looking at some best practices across this country.

The member also mentioned the fact that this bill, in and of itself, does not address some of the very serious issues that lead to young men and women being taken advantage of.

I wonder if the member could specifically talk about some of these other issues that need to be taken into consideration.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for mentioning the committee she is working on with Senator Dallaire.

It is very important to look at the youth who are actually being affected. To go back to the white paper, some of the recommendations in it are actually about education.

We think that educating youth is such a wishy-washy thing to be doing and that we need to really crack down on online sexual exploitation. However education of young people is absolutely key. Many children over 12 are actually complicit in some of their own exploitation. Therefore, we need to work with young people to understand what makes them susceptible to sexual relationships that actually end up online, and to work with teachers and technicians to figure out how to do this. We need to provide education to make sure that kids understand what sexual exploitation is and that they can report it. It has been shown that a lot of children who are involved with online sexual abuse actually experience sexual abuse within their own lives as well before this type of abuse actually gets online.

How can we capture that information? How can we make sure that children are self-reporting? I know it sounds like a very simple thing. The Kids Help Phone is a profound way in which we could start.

We need to work directly with young people and children.