Debates of Nov. 26th, 2009

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Order, please. The Chair has received a notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for St. John's East. I will hear the hon. member now.

Committee Witness Testimony and Supporting Documents

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege relating to the government's action in suppressing evidence that was to be presented to a committee of the House. It is a question of privilege based on all members of the House. I am not a member of the committee but I will read the question of privilege and should you agree that it meets the prima facie test, I would be prepared to make the appropriate motion.

As we know, questions of privilege arise when members or the House of Commons as an institution have been prevented from carrying out their duties. These privileges include freedom of speech, freedom from obstruction, interference and intimidation, and the right to institute inquiries, call witnesses and demand papers. So important are these privileges of the House that they are rooted in the Constitution and contained in section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan has for some weeks been attempting to exercise its parliamentary functions in relation to the hearings and allegations of detainee abuse in Afghanistan. Evidence that was submitted to the Military Police Complaints Commission on the same issue was suppressed by the government under the provisions of sections 37 and 38 of the Canada Evidence Act.

The special committee wanted to obtain this evidence using its powers to call persons and papers and so it called forward Mr. Richard Colvin, a senior diplomat, to testify. In order to assist in its work, the committee first called Mr. Rob Walsh, law clerk for the House of Commons, to testify and advise the committee.

Mr. Walsh confirmed the privileges of Parliament in relation to hearing evidence, requesting testimony and receiving documents. He confirmed that the Canada Evidence Act did not prevent Mr. Colvin or any other witness from testifying and providing documents to support that testimony. He advised that parliamentary privilege overrules sections 37 and 38 of the Canada Evidence Act.

On the morning of Mr. Colvin's proposed testimony to the Special Committee on the Canadian Mission in Afghanistan, he received an email from a representative of his employer at the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. In this email, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade advised Mr. Colvin in writing that the Government of Canada did not accept the law clerk's legal opinion on parliamentary privilege. It states that, “The Government of Canada does not share the Clerk's view of the effect of the laws adopted by Parliament on parliamentary proceedings and, as a public servant, we trust that you will conduct yourself according to the interpretation of the Government of Canada. Should there be any concerns expressed by members of the committee, those concerns should be referred to government counsel”.

This email makes it clear that the Government of Canada does not accept Parliament's privileges and will not abide by the law clerk's confirmation of these privileges.

The Government of Canada in this email attempts to intimidate a witness prior to his testimony in front of the committee. The government also instructs the witness on how he is to answer questions from members of Parliament. As his employer, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the government, is in a position of power over Mr. Colvin and this is a clear attempt to intimidate him.

In 2005, the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that parliamentary privileges, such as freedom of speech and freedom from intimidation and obstruction, extend to witnesses testifying in committees.

In addition, the official from the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade appears to expect that members of Parliament must address their concerns about the issue of privilege to the Department of Justice rather than to their own counsel.

This is a very disturbing situation and I am perturbed that the Department of Justice and the Department of Foreign Affairs believe that all concerns by MPs on the admissibility of documents to Parliament should be referred by the witness to Department of Justice lawyers. These are lawyers who have already stated that they do not believe parliamentarians have the rights and privileges that the Constitution accords them, as outlined in Mr. Rob Walsh's opinion in writing to the committee.

Members cannot receive unbiased advice from the Department of Justice, nor are they obliged to report to the Department of Justice.

I regard this as a clear violation of members' privileges. It attempts to restrict their right to free speech and counsel and it is an affront to Parliament. In silencing witnesses, interfering with and obstructing a person's carrying out the lawful order of the committee and denying parliamentarians rights, the Department of Foreign Affairs and the Department of Justice are in contempt of Parliament.

In addition, the government's attempt to wilfully ignore a constitutionally enshrined right of Parliament to oversee it and hold it accountable is deeply worrying. In turning a blind eye to this contempt of Parliament, a precedent is set that allows the government to withhold any evidence from Parliament that it sees as embarrassing under the guise of national security. It also sets a precedent of ignoring rights of parliamentarians and their constituents. This goes right to the heart of government's accountability to Parliament, and through that, to Canadians.

This particular breach relates in some way to a committee, and I know, Mr. Speaker, that you would be very well aware of that. I am not a member of this committee and I am not seeking a relief for the committee. I am talking here as an ordinary member of Parliament whose own privileges are breached by the failure and the lack of following the relationship between Parliament and the government that this breach speaks to.

The intimidation that we are talking about as well did not take place in the committee itself. It took place in private correspondence prior to committee hearings. I might add that it has also taken place in the public domain, by the government of course, with the character assassination of Mr. Colvin in recent weeks.

The government's complete refusal to recognize the privileges of the House also did not take place in committee, nor is this refusal restricted solely to a committee. The government's blanket refusal to recognize the power to call persons and papers, regardless of the Canada Evidence Act, relates to this chamber.

I raise this issue in the House because it goes to the very core of the purposes of this House and we believe the government is trying to set a very dangerous precedent that actually threatens the work of parliamentarians in all its areas. When the government can take this approach to the parliamentary privileges and the advice being given to parliamentarians by the parliamentary counsel, is that in fact interfering with the rights and privileges of Parliament and the work of Parliament?

Mr. Speaker, that is my submission as a point of privilege and I will leave it to you to make a finding.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out for my hon. friend that the motion requesting documents to be provided was only made yesterday and passed yesterday in committee. That request last evening went into the department for a response. We expect that response to be coming forthwith and it will be provided as soon as possible.

However, I would also make a comment on one of the inferences that my hon. colleague made in his submission dealing with what he called a character assassination of Mr. Richard Colvin.

Mr. Speaker, I would point out to you that it is the right of every parliamentarian during testimony in any committee to question the witness and the content of that testimony. That is what our members on that committee did and they did so respectfully. At the conclusion of his testimony, Mr. Colvin actually admitted that by thanking committee members from all sides for their fairness in the way they dealt with him during that committee appearance.

I should also point out, as most Canadians know by today, that in yesterday's testimony three of the most eminent Canadians, who represented this country admirably in the Canadian armed forces, disputed almost entirely the testimony of Mr. Colvin, yet I do not know whether my hon. colleague would call that or characterize that as character assassination.

Mr. Speaker, if you compare the testimony in yesterday's hearing with the testimony from some of the government members in questioning Mr. Colvin at his appearance, you will find that there is a connect. In other words, the questions that our committee members raised and posed to Mr. Colvin were not only legitimate but they were accurate in their assessments.

Therefore, I would ask my hon. colleague, in his submission, to perhaps stand once again and retract that portion of his testimony where he called it a character assassination of Mr. Colvin. It was anything but, and that was proven yesterday.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the comments made by my NDP colleague, who rightfully has complaints about the government's attitude on this issue. I think this is a matter of the fundamental principles of natural justice. We see it in lawsuits. When one side has documents that could help in an investigation and also in questioning a witness, basic courtesy—and I am fully aware that the basic minimum is all we are talking about when it comes to courtesy—dictates that the principles of natural justice should ensure that the witness testifies with the documents, and that these documents are available to the other side. That is crucial.

Why should the government have an unfair advantage by having documents that the witness had not submitted for us to do our job properly? Once again, this Conservative government is an expert in the art of cover-ups. The Conservative government has things to hide. The Conservative government maintains a culture of secrecy by refusing to have witnesses provide us documents in advance so that we can question them.

My colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, once again referred to Richard Colvin's credibility. This government can be so hypocritical. It made such big deal about encouraging whistleblowers to tell the truth. When the Conservatives were in opposition with us on this side of the House, they attacked the Liberals with a vengeance when the latter refused to protect those who were just doing what they were supposed to do as whistleblowers.

I think that if we want to show just a little respect for our dedicated public service, which is made up of people who want to make government work effectively, we should protect those public servants who bring evidence to light, not continue to destroy them and shred their credibility. They can bring out 15 former generals, but that will not solve the real problem. Mr. Colvin acted according to his conscience and reported the facts. That is all he did.

I am going to refer to the new O’Brien-Bosc, which people are quoting from more and more. Everyone has pretty much forgotten Marleau and Montpetit. Here are some examples of obstruction, interference and intimidation from page 111. I am quoting from Bosc-O'Brien, or is it O'Brien-Bosc? I will double-check my references in future. This is what it says:

It is impossible to codify all incidents which might be interpreted as matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation and as such constitute prima facie cases of privilege. However, some matters found to be prima facie [and that is what you will have to decide, Mr. Speaker] include the damaging of a Member’s reputation, the usurpation of the title of Member of Parliament, the intimidation of Members and their staff and of witnesses [those are the key words] before committees, and the provision of misleading information.

Mr. Speaker, I submit this for your consideration, and I know that you were very proud to have invited us all to the launch of this essential tool this week. I believe that you will read and interpret it judiciously.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to add something on the same topic. I think there is rather clear evidence that the government, the ministers of the Crown, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of National Defence, the Prime Minister himself and the Minister of Public Safety have breached the privilege of all members.

The question of whether parliamentary privilege of members extends to witnesses duly called to testify before a committee duly formed by this House is quite clear. We need only refer to page 114.

On page 114 of O'Brien and Bosc's House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, 2009, it says:

In a ruling given on February 20, 1984, the Speaker stated:

A threat emanating from any government department or public corporation to withhold information or cooperation from a Member of Parliament would undoubtedly hinder that Member in the fulfilment of his or her parliamentary duties and therefore constitute a breach of privilege.

It goes on:

In 1992, a witness who had testified before a subcommittee was advised by a Crown corporation employee that the issue of her testimony was being referred to the corporation’s legal department.

If I look at footnote 240, it says:

Journals, December 4, 1992, p. 2284. Don Boudria (Glengarry–Prescott–Russell) contended that witnesses before committees enjoy the same privileges as Members of the House and are accorded the temporary protection of the House. In the Member’s opinion, if such threats were to go unchallenged, it would imply that witnesses before committees could not testify without the threat of being sued or intimidated (Debates, December 4, 1992, pp. 14629-31).

If we go on to page 115, the Speaker found a prima facie case of contempt and referred it to the House of Commons Standing Committee on House Management, as it was called at that time, for consideration. The committee reported to the House on the question of privilege. The report of the committee stated:

The protection of witnesses is a fundamental aspect of the privilege that extends to parliamentary proceedings and those persons who participate in them. It is well-established in the Parliament of Canada, as in the British Parliament, that witnesses before committees share the same privileges of freedom of speech as do Members. Witnesses before parliamentary committees are therefore automatically extended the same immunities from civil or criminal proceedings as Members for anything that they say before a committee. The protection of witnesses extends to threats made against them or intimidation with respect to their presentations before any parliamentary committee.

It is clear. Mr. Colvin was duly called as a witness before the special committee on Afghanistan, which itself was duly constituted by the House of Commons under our rules and procedures, and Standing Orders. That committee called Mr. Colvin. Mr. Colvin came to testify. The committee also required documents from Mr. Colvin and Mr. Colvin received a letter from the representatives of the Minister of Justice, a minister of the Crown, informing him that they would take legal action against him should he file the documents before the committee.

It is a prima facie case of violation and breach of privilege. It is wilful intimidation and wilful obstruction of the members of Parliament of that committee in the performance of their duties, functions and responsibilities, and it is a prima facie breach of the privilege that is extended to the witnesses before that committee.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I will reiterate what I said in my earlier intervention. At the special committee on Afghanistan yesterday, a motion was made following the testimony by General Hillier, Lieutenant General Gauthier and General Fraser. Committee members made a motion, which was passed, that documentation would be requested. The government has already stated on several occasions, both by the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence, that any legal documents available would be presented.

That is still the government's position. However, I will also point out, in the overarching insinuation by members opposite of intimidation of witnesses, that one of the witnesses yesterday, Lieutenant General Gauthier, said that he was quite frankly shocked to find out watching television a few days ago that a member of Parliament of this House would go out on national television and in effect accuse the lieutenant general of war crimes.

If the members opposite want to talk about intimidation tactics, there can be no greater example of that than what Lieutenant General Gauthier mentioned yesterday. It is reprehensible and shameful to try and accuse one of Canada's finest public servants, charged with the responsibility of protecting our fighting men and women, with war crimes, and unsubstantiated allegations on national television.

I would suggest to all members opposite that, if they want to start making accusations about intimidation, they take a look in the mirror.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The hon. member for St. John's East and this will be the last submission on this matter.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the submissions by other parties, but I do want to say to the government member who spoke that the character assassination I was talking about was the character assassination that took place in the House and in the public by members of the government.

I want to thank the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine for her reference to the parliamentary procedures book that I see you are assiduously reviewing at the moment, Mr. Speaker, but I do want to add that the effect on this witness goes further.

In fact, he was also instructed two days before to surrender any reports from Afghanistan in his possession to the Department of Justice. Not only are the Conservatives telling him that they do not agree with what the counsel to Parliament says in its interpretation of parliamentary privileges but they will not allow him to present the papers the committee is looking for because they are instructing him to give the documents to them.

That is clearly an attempt to interfere and obstruct with the operations of this Parliament by preventing an individual under pain, as an employer, from presenting papers to the House that the committee is clearly looking for. This goes well beyond the activity of the committee itself and the whole of Parliament is affected by this, if the government can operate in this way to thwart, defeat and remove the privileges of members of Parliament by its actions as an employer in giving instructions to its employees. That is the thrust of what we are saying here today.

What I am saying is that my privileges have been breached and I thank the members on this side who have supported my submission.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I have heard enough on this point.

I would like to thank the hon. members who raised this issue, especially the hon. member for St. John's East, whom I thank for his interventions on this.

In my view this is not a matter of privilege for the House at this time, and I say, “at this time”. It may become one.

The witness in question is testifying before a committee of this House, not before the House. The question of privilege, in my view, is one that should be raised in the committee. The committee has full power to decide whether or not its privileges have been breached and it will want to do so when it sees what information is submitted by the witnesses to the committee.

They may not have had all the papers with them on the day they appeared, but they may be tabled later before the committee or brought to the committee later. The committee can decide whether or not it has received what it was entitled to receive and whether or not there has been a breach of its privileges, and it can then present a report to the House.

If a report comes to the House, it is up to the Speaker to decide whether that report then allows a member to raise a question of privilege arising from the report, which will then get priority treatment in this House as befits a question of privilege.

I refer hon. members to pages 151-2 of O'Brien and Bosc, and this is in committee, where it states:

If, in the opinion of the Chair, the issue raised relates to privilege...the committee can proceed to the consideration of a report on the matter to the House. The Chair will entertain a motion which will form the text of the report. It should clearly describe the situation, summarize the events, name any individuals involved, indicate that privilege may be involved or that a contempt may have occurred, and request the House to take some action. The motion is debatable and amendable, and will have priority of consideration in the committee. If the committee decides that the matter should be reported to the House, it will adopt the report which will be presented to the House at the appropriate time under the rubric “Presenting Reports from Committees” during Routine Proceedings.

Once the report has been presented, the House is formally seized of the matter. After having given the appropriate notice, any Member may then raise the matter as a question of privilege. The Speaker will hear the question of privilege and may hear other Members on the matter, before ruling on the prima facie nature of the question of privilege. As Speaker Fraser noted in a ruling, “...The Chair is not judging the issue. Only the House itself can do that. The Chair simply decides on the basis of the evidence presented whether the matter is one which should take priority over other business”. Should the Speaker rule the matter a prima facie breach of privilege, the next step would be for the Member who raised the question of privilege to propose a motion asking the House to take some action. Should the Speaker rule that there is no prima facie question of privilege, no priority would be given to the matter.

In my view this is clearly a matter that the committee can consider. If it decides that its privileges and its members' privileges have been breached, it can report the matter to the House and we can deal with the matter when that report arrives here in the chamber.

But in my view the privileges of the House itself at this moment have not been breached. Possibly there has been a breach in the committee, I am making no judgment on that matter, but when the committee presents a report, I will hear argument on it if necessary and give a ruling in accordance with practice at that time.

However, I believe it would be premature for the Speaker of the House to decide a matter that is currently before a committee, and has not come back to the House from the committee except in submissions by the hon. member. The committee will have to decide on its own initiative whether or not the privileges of the committee or of its members have been breached by what has transpired.

We will leave the matter there for the time being and move on at this point to orders of the day.

Business of the House

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to adopt the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, the debate pursuant to Standing Order 66 scheduled for tonight be deemed to have taken place and the Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, presented on Wednesday, June 17, 2009, be concurred in.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I declare the motion carried.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed from November 25 consideration of the motion that Bill C-58, An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Child Protection Act (Online Sexual Exploitation)

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on second reading of Bill C-58, An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service, and to reiterate the government's commitment to protecting our children.

Evolving communication technologies like the World Wide Web have proven to be of clear benefit to Canadians.

Sadly, these same technologies have also provided new and easier means for offenders to make, view and distribute child pornography. As a result, there has been a significant increase in the availability and volume of child pornography. The web has also enabled criminals to coordinate and plan a wide range of other crimes.

Unfortunately, despite its undeniable benefits, today's advanced technology not only makes these crimes easier to commit but also harder to investigate. While technology has advanced rapidly, it is a challenge for law enforcement to keep pace with new technologies when it comes to investigating crimes.

There are also reports of an increased demand for material with violent content and/or material showing children who are very young. This increased demand is being met with increased supply.

Child pornography constitutes a very serious form of child victimization. Not only are children sexually abused and exploited, but the continuing demand for production and use of child pornography also objectifies all children as sexual objects for the sexual gratification of adult predators.

According to the recent report by the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, “Every Image, Every Child”, the number of images of serious child abuse quadrupled between 2003 and 2007. As I mentioned, these images are becoming more violent and feature younger children.

I was appalled to discover that 39% of those individuals accessing child pornography were viewing images of children between the ages of three and five, and 19% were viewing images of infants under three years old. I am sure that most law-abiding Canadians would be just as horrified by these statistics.

In addition, Cybertip.ca, Canada's national tipline for reporting the online sexual exploitation of children, receives more than 800,000 hits and more than 700 reports to its website each month.

To help achieve our goal of putting a stop to the growing problem of sexual exploitation of children, the Minister of Justice recently introduced legislation that would create a more uniform mandatory reporting regime across Canada. It would require persons who provide Internet services to the public to report certain information about Internet child pornography. Failure to comply with these duties would constitute an offence punishable by fines and, in some cases, imprisonment, or both.

Our efforts are focused on the Internet and on suppliers of Internet services, because the Internet has largely been responsible for the growth of child pornography crimes over the last 10 years or so.

This legislation covers more than just Internet service provides, or ISPs, as they are known. This term, of course, is commonly used in relation to those who provide access to the Internet. The legislation applies to all persons who provide an Internet service to the public, including Internet access, electronic mail services, Internet content hosting services and social networking sites.

This new reporting regime would complement the actions this government has already taken earlier this year. Our government introduced legislation that proposed to update certain existing offences and to create new investigative powers to help law enforcement officials deal with crime in today's technological environment. It also introduced legislation regarding investigative tools for enforcement agencies to quickly respond to crimes such as child pornography. These pieces of legislation acknowledge that the same communications technologies that benefit our day-to-day lives also provide easier ways of committing crimes, as well as shielding perpetrators from investigation.

Bill C-58, a new act, complements well the measures already in place in the Criminal Code. The code's existing child pornography provisions prohibit all forms of making, distributing, making available, accessing and possessing child pornography, including through the use of the Internet.

At the same time, I also applaud the efforts of provincial and territorial governments that have already enacted, or are contemplating, legislation on mandatory reporting of child pornography. Children are also protected from sexual exploitation by provincial and territorial child welfare legislation, which permits the voluntary reporting of child pornography and makes that reporting mandatory in three provinces. In fact, the approaches adopted in Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia require all citizens to report all forms of child pornography.

Bill C-58 is new federal criminal legislation that is narrower in scope than the legislation in those three provinces. Nevertheless, it will provide for uniform mandatory reporting regimes across the country, which will complement provincial and territorial efforts under their child welfare legislation.

I am also encouraged by the actions of the many suppliers of Internet services who have been good corporate citizens in voluntarily reporting child pornography. The reports to Cybertip.ca have resulted in a number of arrests, as well as numerous children being removed from abusive environments.

Our government takes the safety of our citizens, particularly children, very seriously, whether in cyberspace or out in our communities. The creation and distribution of child pornography is an appalling and odious crime in which children are brutalized over and over again.

A mandatory reporting regime across Canada will improve law enforcement's ability to detect potential child pornography offences, help reduce the availability of online child pornography, facilitate the rescue of victims and help identify and apprehend offenders.

Through this legislation our government is continuing its progress in protecting Canadians, improving our justice system and ensuring that it keeps pace with modern technologies. At the same time, we are reiterating our commitment to protect children from sexual exploitation.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I ask the member who has just spoken whether the government has done some best practice searches across the world to see whether there are other jurisdictions that maybe have dealt with the matter more effectively? Has the government looked at Sweden, Brazil, Germany or other countries in the EU as examples of places where more effective options may be found?

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the government has looked at what a number of countries, provinces and territories have been doing, because I know that Canadians consider this issue to be very serious.

I know that we need to look at all of the possibilities to ensure that we do protect our children. This bill does so much to remove what has stood in the way of police being able to investigate and get at the perpetrators of this terrible crime.

[Rick Casson, Conservative, Lethbridge, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. Maybe just to preface that a little bit, a number of years ago I tabled a private member's bill in the House to deal with child pornography. We had noticed at the time that the Criminal Code contained no provision to take away the equipment and materials used to create child pornography. Thus we brought forward that bill, and to the government's credit at the time, it included the provisions in a bill, which became law. So we feel pretty strongly about some of these issues.

I ask my colleague how many cases of Internet child pornography are investigated annually in Canada? He indicated that the ISPs are offering information now, but I would just like to know what is happening presently in Canada.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Lethbridge for that question because it is very important and I know it is something that is very important to him.

The latest statistical data we have relating to child pornography is from 2007. During that year there were over 1,400 police reported child pornography incidents, 440 of which resulted in charges. Unfortunately we have no way of knowing if any of those cases were initiated by an Internet service provider report.

What we do know is that the proliferation of images over the Internet really is a growing problem. According to the special report by the Federal Ombudsman for Victims of Crime, “Every Image, Every Child”, which I spoke about in my presentation, the number of images of serious child abuse quadrupled between 2003 and 2007. The images are getting more violent and the children in the photos are getting younger.

I know that this is something the hon. member for Lethbridge takes very seriously and I do too. I know that our government does, which is why this legislation was introduced.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe outlined in his speech that in Sweden child porn is blocked. Germany and the EU also block access to child porn sites. Brazil has set up ethics rules which the ISPs have signed on to.

I wonder if the member might see these options as being more effective or maybe additions to the effects of this bill.

[Gord Brown, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is excellent input.

We are at second reading debate on the bill. I think there is strong support among all parties for the bill to move to committee so that the committee can look at it. I know members of Parliament will want to hear about all of the possibilities to make sure that we do everything possible to fight child pornography.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-58. It is important to summarize again what the bill is about.

This bill would impose reporting duties on Internet service providers, ISPs, and on those who offer Internet services to the public when child pornography appears in accounts provided to their subscribers, or if they have reasonable grounds to believe that their service is being or has been used to commit a child pornography offence. That basically summarizes the bill. As a party, Liberal members support the bill at second reading and sending it to committee.

It is important to look at some of the history.

The governing party tries to leave the impression that it is the only party that believes in law and order. However, this has been on the agenda for a long time. We looked at it when we were in government, when I was the solicitor general. We were very worried about child pornography.

Although the Internet is a wonderful tool in terms of providing information to citizens, it is also a tool that others can use to exploit children and exploit people in many other ways.

Although the government tries to indicate that it is the only party that believes in law and order, it is not. I think all of us in this House believe in law and order.

When we pass laws in this place we have to ensure that they are balanced laws and that they will do what they are intended to do without creating unseen consequences and complications for others in society.

As with all legislation that mandates a third party to report online dealings to the police, a balance needs to be struck between policing and privacy concerns to protect Internet neutrality. We intend to examine these questions at committee.

That is why it is extremely important that we send the bill to committee and allow the proper witnesses to come forward, people who work on the Internet system and understand the technicalities and the difficulties of imposing this new burden on providers, albeit for all the right reasons. We need to understand the implications of that in terms of the laws that we make as well.

I might point out another reality, which the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe mentioned yesterday in a somewhat similar tone. The reality is that in 2005 the mandatory minimum sentence of one year for an offence of possessing and creating child pornography was instituted by a Liberal government. The definition of child pornography was broadened by a Liberal government to include depictions, digital or otherwise, in order to trap more perpetrators of the crime. That took us up to late 2005. Then we take the canvas over to January 23, 2006. The hon. member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe said:

I have sat through the justice committee meetings and read the literature since that time without interruption. I have not attended every meeting, but I have been there for the whole agenda. There has been nothing on child pornography in that time. If we are all united in Parliament to try to do some good and combat the ill effects of the web and child pornography exploitation in particular, we ought to say to each other that this is not good enough.

The key point the member is making, with which I agree, is that we have to come together quickly. As I said, this was an issue when I was solicitor general in 2003. Each and every day the Internet system is used for the exploitation of others, so we have to get this bill to committee and deal with this issue. It has taken the government a considerable amount of time to bring this bill forward.

As well, I would point out that all attorneys general across Canada, based on the attorney general meetings with the provinces, basically support the move in this direction. Because of the slowness of the federal government in terms of moving forward, some of those governments are taking action on their own.

If we are going to have good laws in Canada, there has to be coordination across the board. That is why it is so important that the federal government take the lead in terms of the implementation of these laws. It is important that we get Bill C-58 to committee, have our hearings and get it acted upon.

While I am on my feet talking about law and order issues, and I have mentioned this before in the House of Commons, there is an area that I am really concerned about and it fits into this debate in some fashion. That is the whole way the Minister of Public Safety is undermining the rehabilitation aspect of inmates by abolishing the prison farms.

I have said before that this is an extremely important issue. We have a government that is talking about law and order, but its law and order agenda seems to be to go out there and build super-jails and put more people in prison. If we are going to have a justice system that works, it has to be one that rehabilitates people. One of the best rehabilitative aspects of that system in fact is for those inmates to work on farms.

There are six of those farms across the country. One of the most productive farms is in the Kingston area. I have been there. In fact, it is in the Speaker's home riding. There are six institutions in that area. Frontenac Pen Farm is in that area. It has one of the best and most productive dairy herds in Canada, and the government is talking about closing it down. It is a farm in which inmates get out there and work with cattle and produce crops and supply other institutions in the Kingston area and across the country to Laval, Quebec, with food. This is productivity in which they take pride.

Contrary to what the Minister of Public Safety states, that skills of farmers are no longer worthy, they are in fact worthy. The inmates do not just learn how to be mechanics or how to milk a cow. They learn teamwork. They learn management. They learn computer skills. They learn how to relate through the use of feeding and working with cattle and livestock.

I want to take the opportunity, while I am on this bill, to emphasize this point again. The government, with no supporting data, has decided to close those prison farms across the country and lose that productivity, lose the rehabilitative aspects of inmates working on farms. That is a terrible decision. It is a wrong decision. I would encourage the minister to come to his senses and recognize that those farms are an important part of our corrections system and should remain.

I will admit that I got a wee bit off track from Bill C-58, but my point in expressing the seriousness of the decision of the government on prison farms is that while it talks about law and order, while it is great on messaging, its actions are not always in the same direction in which it is leaving the impression it is moving forward.

Bill C-58 is important. It stems from an agreement reached at the 2008 meeting of federal, provincial and territorial justice ministers to enact mandatory requirements for ISPs and online content providers to report cases of child pornography.

The major components of the bill that we support are: the mandatory reporting of all website addresses that ISPs are aware may contain child pornography; mandatory reporting to police when ISPs believe that a child pornography offence is or has been committed using their services; and that the provider must also preserve the relevant computer data for 21 days after notifying police, unless required by judicial order that the data is to be destroyed after the 21 day period.

Those are valid reasons and our party is willing to give support to this legislation, to send it to committee to be studied further and to be implemented, I hope quickly, so that this terrible issue of child pornography and the exploitation of children on the Internet can be dealt with.