Thank you.
I think that this point where Mr. Woodworth gets caught is a really important one. I'm concerned that clause 10 may also alleviate responsibility to report under clause 4. When you're doing the review of this, if you could look at it being clear that clause 10 does not exempt the responsibility under clauses 4 or 5....
I have a question. You've used a different test in the reporting requirements in clauses 3 and 4. In clause 3, “where child pornography may be available to the public” is the test requiring them to report to the agency, and then in clause 4 it's reporting to a police officer or other designated person. The test there is where they believe the Internet service “is being or has been used to commit a child pornography offence”.
Are you contemplating setting it out more specifically in the regulations? I would assume a lot of the people who will have to make this decision on whether an offence has been committed are not going to be people with legal backgrounds, so how are they going to determine this?
In particular, I'm thinking of the situations where we know it's a problem. You get pieces of art being sent over the Internet that may have the possibility of being defined as child pornography. You get personal pictures being sent--the baby-in-the-bathtub situation. How are you expecting people to comply, in particular with clause 4, where they don't have a legal background in criminal matters? Are they exposing themselves to potential charges, for instance, with the baby in the bathtub or the piece of art, where the police officer decides that they should have reported?