Bill C-22 · 40th Parliament · Stephen Harper
An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedMay 6, 2010
- Debated in principleOct. 4, 2010
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberDec. 3, 2010
- Passed the second chamberMarch 3, 2011
- Became lawMarch 22, 2011
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
- Bob RuncimanSenate · Sponsor in the Senate
- Jim MalowayCalls the bill very important with little disagreement after years of waiting.
- Joe ComartinStates all parties support the bill and it will clearly pass.
- Daniel PetitStates he is honoured to speak in support and that all agree on protecting children.
- Marc LemayHe states that the Bloc agreed with this bill after prior study.
- Mark WarawaHe states that Conservative members strongly support the legislation as the right thing for protecting children.
- Ed FastHe refers positively to dealing with the bill in committee and strengthening its fines.
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
What it set out to do
On 6 May 2010, the Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-22, An Act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service (Protecting Children from Online Sexual Exploitation Act), in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-22 requires internet providers to • Report, to a designated agency, tips they receive regarding Web sites where child pornography may be available to the public; and • Notify police and safeguard evidence if they believe that a child pornography offence has been committed using an Internet service that they provide. Failure to comply with the duties under this Act would constitute an offence punishable by graduated fines: up to $1,000 for a first offence; $5,000 for a second offence; and for subsequent offences the possibility of a fine up to $10,000 or six months imprisonment; or both for sole proprietorships. If a corporation fails to comply with its duties under this Act, the graduated fine scheme would be up to $10,000, $50,000 and $100,000.
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
That Bill C-22 be amended by restoring Clause 1 as follows: “1. This Act may be cited as the Protecting Children from Online Sexual Exploitation Act.” · 2010-11-16 · Failed
How it changed on the way
67% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (1,284 words introduced, 1,234 passed). A committee amended it.
moderate changeintent mostly kept
The core duties, offences and penalties remained intact but all sections were renumbered after the short title was dropped. Minor wording tweaks updated cross-references and capitalization.
- Short title section was removed and became the Act title instead.
Before: “SHORT TITLE 1. This Act may be cited as the Protecting Children from Online Sexual Exploitation Act.”
- All subsequent sections were renumbered downward by one.
Before: “INTERPRETATION 2. Definitions DUTIES 3. Duty to report Internet address”
After: “INTERPRETATION 1. Definitions DUTIES 2. Duty to report Internet address”
- Cross-reference was made more specific.
Before: “is deemed to have complied with this Act in relation to that information.”
After: “is deemed to have complied with section 2 of this Act in relation to that information.”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill uses defined terms, cross-references to the Criminal Code, fixed time periods like 21 days and two years, and an objective 'reasonable grounds to believe' test for most duties. It leaves several operational details and the designated organization to regulations made by the Governor in Council.
Open to argument
“where child pornography may be available to the public”
The word 'may' introduces a low and somewhat subjective threshold rather than an objective fact.“has reasonable grounds to believe”
While a recognized legal standard, it still requires judgment about what facts meet the threshold in each case.“generally, for carrying out the purposes and provisions of this Act”
This catch-all clause gives the Governor in Council wide latitude to add rules not listed in the specific paragraphs.
Clear-cut
“preserve all computer data related to the notification that is in their possession or control for 21 days after the day on which the notification is made”
A clear number and exact start and end points remove argument about duration.“A prosecution for an offence under this Act cannot be commenced more than two years after the time when the act or omission giving rise to the prosecution occurred”
A fixed limitation period stated in calendar terms leaves no discretion.“"Internet Service" means a service providing Internet access, Internet content hosting or electronic mail”
The definition lists three concrete activities, narrowing the persons covered.
Discretion. The Governor in Council may designate the reporting organization, set security measures, and make any regulations needed to carry out the Act, leaving the practical operation of the scheme to executive rules rather than the statute itself.
Challenging the law itself. Sections 2 and 3 could be attacked for vagueness or overbreadth under section 7 of the Charter because of the 'may be available' and 'reasonable grounds' language, though the Criminal Code cross-references and fixed timelines strengthen the drafting.
Disputing a charge under it. An accused could dispute whether they had 'reasonable grounds to believe' or whether the information they received truly indicated child pornography 'may be available,' but the 'knowingly' mens rea and specific listed offences limit the room for argument.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.