I'm not aware that we've used the term “articulable cause” in Canadian statutes. It's used in American statutes, and our understanding is that it may be a higher threshold to meet, but I think we have to bear in mind that we're talking about a duty on the ISPs and we're not talking about the grounds that the police would rely on to pursue charges. So as my colleague has indicated, we want those ISPs to have a more layman's term to understand. If they have reasonable grounds to believe it's there, we think they'll be erring on the side of a broad interpretation. If it's possible that it be there, they'll report it. The police will then look into it in terms of whether it is in fact child pornography on the site. It won't be up to the person who makes the tip to do that. Then the police will decide if there are grounds to lay specific charges and which child pornography offences are at play. We're not asking the non-peace-officer to do that exploration.
On October 19th, 2010. See this statement in context.