Justice Committee on Oct. 21st, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Well, the reality is that the short title did not carry.

Mr. Dechert.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

If I could make a comment, Mr. Chair, we heard from Ms. McDonald a few minutes ago and I had asked her some questions. I don't know if Mr. Murphy had an opportunity to hear those questions. I specifically asked her about why she used the term “child sexual exploitation”—

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Can I raise something? I'm sorry. I apologize to my friend for interrupting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Is this a point of order?

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

It's a point of order, yes. My perception is that perhaps Mr. Dechert and I might want to debate that. I don't know if the chair could in some fashion seek the consent of the committee to go back, open that for debate, and do it again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Well, we've had the vote and I think we're going to move on.

Mr. Dechert, back to you.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

I think it's incumbent upon me, representing the government, Mr. Chair, to explain why that short title was there. The reason is if Mr. Murphy—

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

Point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

We have a point of order from Mr. Murphy.

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

That's not a point of order. That's a speech on what topic--on the long title? You have to to keep some sort of order and decorum.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

It seems to me that there was some political motivation. Why would you object--

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

Could you rule on my point of order?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Why would anyone object to describing the statute as--

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

One moment, Mr. Dechert.

We've dealt with the short title. I know there are some views here, some justification for the short title. We have to move on. We have a long title that still has to be dealt with. Out of respect for the process, I understand. Next time, if you want to debate the short title, just raise your hand and I will recognize you. Nobody did. We moved on. So I want to respect that process.

Let's move on to the title. Is there any discussion on the long title?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to speak to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Mr. Dechert.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

In illustrating the purpose of the long title, I'd like to refer to the short title, which, unfortunately, we didn't have an opportunity to discuss a moment ago.

The Canadian Centre for Child Protection was here today and gave us a very good presentation on why this bill is about more than simply the material of child pornography, why this is about protecting children both in Canada and around the world from sexual exploitation.

If my honourable friends opposite had taken the time to read the very good materials that were presented by the centre, they would have seen the term “sexually exploited children” used in virtually every line, phrase, and recommendation of the report.

I asked Ms. McDonald why she used that term, why she didn't simply refer to child pornography. And she made a very good and very fulsome argument about how the actual material itself leads to the exploitation and abuse of children.

This bill is about more than just restricting a picture. This bill is about putting in place criminal provisions and sanctions against people who use this material and who therefore may actually be abusing the children in order to create this material. We want to be able to use this legislation to rescue children who can be identified by the images that are disseminated on the Internet. We want to be able to prevent other children who have not yet been abused from being abused, because the people who get this material, who see other children being abused, might get the idea that maybe somehow that's okay. That's what this is about. And that's why this bill had the proper short title, Protecting Children from Online Sexual Exploitation Act. For the life of me, I can't understand why any reasonable person would object to that.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you, Mr. Dechert.

Next is Mr. Woodworth.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Keep in mind, by the way, that we have five minutes, and then we have to adjourn.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I'm well aware of my propensities.

I want to speak in support of the motion for the reason that the title describes child pornography reporting. We want child pornography reporting because it will protect children from online sexual exploitation, just as was mentioned in the short title. It will protect them not only from pornography. Our witness mentioned that the provisions of this bill will prevent children from being lured. The provisions of this bill will permit police to rescue children who are being sexually exploited. The provisions of this bill will be used to prevent people who consume pornography from going out and exploiting children. The whole idea of preventing child sexual exploitation is at the heart of this bill. And I agree with Mr. Dechert; there is absolutely no reason we couldn't have adopted the short title to say that, because that's really what's behind this title.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

Thank you for being brief.

Mr. Lee, will you be brief?

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

I'll try to be brief too. I know we want to wrap this bill up today, and we don't, and I don't, want to extend this.

As much as I could agree with a lot of what Mr. Dechert and Mr. Woodworth have said, if it was just this one bill, fine, but the speech writers and slogan guys in your backrooms have preceded you.

We are supposed to be adopting a short title, not a big long paragraph commercial. This is supposed to be a short title. I will just refer members to other legislation we now have in front of us.

Bill C-21, the long title is “An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sentencing for fraud)”. The short title is called—believe it or not, this is supposed to be short—“Standing Up for Victims of White Collar Crime Act”. This is how the bill is expected to be cited by people in courts of law, and the short title is actually not very short.

And as if to really, really cap this, Bill C-16, which is simply called “An Act to amend the Criminal Code”, the government drafters have walked away from the short title, which is what we normally do—give it a short title so people can refer to it. They now describe Bill C-16—go check it out—with an alternative title. Why do we need an alternative title? It now reads, “This Act may be cited as the Ending House Arrest for Property and Other Serious Crimes by Serious and Violent Offenders Act”. How short is that?

So I am sorry, but in this particular Parliament, it is my hope that members, legislators, will grab hold of this—the attempt to torque the short title of a bill for a political purpose—and bring the thing back to a normal level where we can have a nice, clean, accurate short title.

That is why Mr. Murphy took the approach he did, and that's the approach I'm going to be taking in the future. And we'll have a chance to debate this again probably.

[The Chair, Conservative, Ed Fast]

All right, we have a question, if someone wants to call the question. You can't call the vote in that sense, but I will call the question.

Shall the title carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.