Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I hope everyone was able to take care of the call of nature. We look forward to being able to get back to this very important discussion.
I would just note, Madam Chair, that I've been very intentional in my remarks. I've talked with precision about organizations and their endorsements of this bill and I've talked about the need to get it across the proverbial finish line.
I would just share that when I was originally planning to join this conversation, I hoped there would be the opportunity for us to ask questions of some of the important witnesses whose names were submitted. I believe our side submitted them close to a week ago. However, we are here today, discussing the bill and the amendment to extend the study, which puts at risk the ability for this very important piece of legislation....
As we're getting back to the discussion here today, I'll just highlight how important it is that we actually get this across the finish line. A 30-day delay is quite possibly the equivalent to what I discussed quite briefly earlier, about seeing it die at committee. It is so important that we get this sorted and get it across the finish line.
Madam Chair, I'll continue to share some of the organizations that have done such good work across the country, and in other parts of the world as well, especially with the Internet. I'll get back to the endorsements this bill has from so many organizations.
Again, it was supported by every member of Parliament. It's been endorsed by a whole host of organizations. However, I think one thing is understated. It used to be, prior to the advent of the Internet, that when we had issues come forward, particularly of a criminal nature, it was pretty easy to delineate what had happened, where it had happened and how. You were in a jurisdiction, a crime had been committed in that jurisdiction, and then the prosecution could take place, etc. With the advent of the Internet, and cyberspace more generally, the virtual nature of it has really changed the understanding of borders in terms of the impact.
The key with Bill C-270 is making sure that we're drawing that line that is so important to say Canada is not the place for this. It is also very important in the context of saying Canada cannot be a place where this is allowed to happen. If we can get this bill across the finish line, that could very well have a global impact.
I won't get into it here, but I could speak at length about the frustrations I have with the Trudeau government's foreign policy and the deterioration in how Canada is viewed abroad and a whole host of things around that. I don't want to get into that because I want to stay very focused on Bill C-270, but one of the things I think the world needs to know is that Canada's willing to take a strong stand to say that there are things that are not acceptable and that in Canada, we draw the line. We have the opportunity to ensure that when it comes to sexual exploitation, the materials associated with that and the wide impact they have, this bill will be the signal to the world that says that Canada is not a haven for these sorts of corporate bad actors.
It will be that signal to the world that it is not allowed; that there are consequences to this that we can stand, in terms of our global partners, through various law enforcement agencies, intelligence, etc., to be able to say that Canada is a place where justice and the rule of law is strong and that there are consequences to exploiting those who are most vulnerable within our society.
That signal would not be important just in the context of where we are on this issue; there are also a host of peripheral issues around law and order. I want to stay focused on Bill C-270, but the issues surrounding Internet sexual exploitation and some of the crime, and the nature of how that happens in different parts of the underground economy, for example.... We have seen a massive growth in some of these things over the last number of years. As a result, there are many who are questioning Canada's ability to stand up for the rule of law.
Whenever we talk about these things, we have to keep the victims at the forefront of our minds. In this case, it's those who are the subject of this exploitive material. That's pretty straightforward. However, when it comes to criminal justice matters across the board, there is, I would suggest, a very clear need to be able to say that Canada is not a place where crime can flourish. We are a country that expects the rule of law to be upheld. As a result, with the rule of law being upheld, we can ensure that the victims of crime are in fact protected. This is because the best way to ensure that victims are protected is to ensure that there are fewer victims.
That's one of my biggest frustrations about many of the discussions around criminal justice and some of the reforms that have been brought about. Especially over the last nine or so years, we have seen a deterioration of the things that have traditionally been.... You used to be able to just take for granted that somebody convicted of a crime would stay in prison, that there would be justice for individuals who perpetrated an injustice. I think there are tangible aspects to the deterioration of that trust. You can hear it from anybody who's been the victim of a crime. You can hear it in their voice. There's a very clear understanding of that.
We have before us an example of how we're able to take steps in the right direction to ensure that we protect Canadians. We can—and, I would suggest, need—to send the signal to the world that Canada is not a safe haven for lawlessness and that we're not a safe haven for bad corporate actors when it comes to things like explicit material that has been obtained through non-consensual means. We need to send a signal that there's a clear mechanism to protect some of the most vulnerable.
The best solution, especially when it comes to law and order reforms—these justice reforms that are so important—is to reduce the number of victims. It's a somewhat intangible thing, because that solution means that there will be fewer people affected. However, that's the point. When there are fewer victims, it demonstrates that you are actually able to address some of these challenges.
There is a responsibility for all of us around this table and for every MP supporting this bill in getting to this stage. I wish we could have been able to question witnesses today. However, instead, we're debating an extension that could regrettably kill this bill if it were to pass. There are all of these things surrounding this.
At the very root of all of this, it has to be.... We can stand up for the past victims and we can help reduce the number of victims going forward. As a result, I think it's incumbent upon all of us to ensure that this does, in fact, happen. Certainly I and my colleagues—including the sponsor of this bill, who's done a ton of work to make it happen—have this responsibility. My hope is that the members of the government who are trying to delay the passing of this bill, instead of putting—