The bill, properly described, although not very easily said in a soundbite, is “an act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service”. That's precisely what the bill does. It's very accurate. That's the formal title.
We've slipped away, it seems, from calling bills by their boring long titles like that, which are meant to be precise as to what they do, to these soundbite-driven phrases that perhaps mislead people and oversell what a bill's actually about.
This is a good bill. The minister himself said it's but a step in a process. The ladies here before from Cybertip.ca corroborated that. There's nothing wrong with this bill. To put it out there as a panacea, which I believe--this is a matter of subjective view--the short title does, Protecting Children from Online Sexual Exploitation Act, I think that's overreaching.
I guess I put it to my friends on the other side, why aren't we content with the actual title of the bill, or why don't we follow what other provinces have done? In two cases they have called it, so that people understand it better, the Child Pornography Reporting Act, because that's really what it is.
That's the nature of my amendment, short and sweet. I'll forewarn you that if this amendment doesn't pass, I for one shall be voting not to pass the short title part of this bill, because I'm content with the actual formal title.
That's my two bits. Thank you.