Bill C-273 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cyberbullying)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code in order to clarify that cyberbullying is an offence.

[Peter Jon Mitchell, Senior Researcher, Institute of Marriage and Family Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and committee members, for the opportunity to appear before you today in regard to Bill C-273 on behalf of the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, a social policy think tank that conducts and compiles research on issues pertaining to the Canadian family.

Just last week another study was published in a peer-reviewed journal that linked the damage done by bullying during childhood to the increased risk of mental health related issues in young adulthood. The consequences of unaddressed bullying are severe.

As I continue to review research and engage with parents, I encounter a high level of anxiety and a sense of helplessness among parents of bullied children. Many of our attempts to stay ahead of the cyberbullying issue are akin to refereeing a soccer game from outside the stadium. As parents and caring adults, we prepare our children, acknowledging that once they enter the online world they're on their own. It is as if we are left peering at the field of play through a gap in the fence. Caring adults are largely absent in the online world of children and teens. Bullies know it, and they thrive where adults are absent.

Conceptually, enforcing the full weight of the Criminal Code on bullies appeals to the popular sense of justice, but this simplifies what is often a complex issue where many bullies are also victims. Functionally, the criminal law occupies the far end of the continuum in a series of bullying interventions among children and youth, the demographic that I want to speak to today.

The Criminal Code can protect victims and the community from escalating harm, but it is a very particular tool within limited circumstances. Before speaking to the specific merits and concerns that I have with Bill C-273, I want to acknowledge two limits to the function of the Criminal Code that should ground our expectations on what it can accomplish.

Use of the Criminal Code will not eradicate bullying.

First, applying the criminal law does not address the nature of bullying. At its core, bullying is a relational issue that requires relational intervention. Canadian clinical and developmental psychologist Gordon Neufeld understands bullying to be an instinctual, social, and emotional issue. Children, like adults, instinctually connect and attach to others, forming caregiving and care-receiving relationships. This is easily observed when watching children play. Neufeld argues that these naturally forming hierarchies facilitate the drive to care for others, but where instinct should draw upon empathy, the bully, often impaired by his or her own emotional trauma, is compelled to expose and exploit perceived weaknesses. Unmaking a bully takes time and requires relational capital.

Second, the Criminal Code is limited in the ability to prevent and deter young cyberbullies. As Wayne MacKay, who chaired the Nova Scotia Task Force on Bullying and Cyberbullying, noted in his report, “...the criminal law, while necessary and useful in certain serious cases, is a limited and often ineffective tool against the social problem of bullying.”

Professor MacKay notes that criminal law has limited impact on prevention and deterrence for young people. In fact, until very recently, the Youth Criminal Justice Act omitted the principle of deterrence during sentencing, in part because of this assumption that youth are less likely to be deterred by criminal sanctions.

American criminologist Thomas Holt summed it up well when he argued, “It's very hard to say that any 14-year-old with a cell phone who can text is going to think about a cyberbullying law when they're communicating with their peers.”

The best response to bullying is a community-level approach that brings together parents, caring adults such as educators, and children and youth. Research demonstrates that home and school environments are key to preventing the escalating nature of bullying.

Authentic relationships between youth and adults are critical to shielding victims and unmaking bullies. Justin Patchin, a criminologist at the U.S.-based Cyberbullying Research Center, who testified before the Canadian Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, said elsewhere, “The vast majority of cyberbullying incidents can and should be handled informally: with parents, schools, and others working together to address the problem before it rises to the level of a violation of the criminal law.” But of course there are situations where the Criminal Code is necessary to protect victims and the community from escalating harm.

What are the merits of Bill C-273?

First, the bill brings the stated sections of the Criminal Code into the 21st century by addressing common tools of communication. Some have argued that the Criminal Code is already sufficiently broad to encompass electronic bullying behaviours, particularly section 264. The amendment to section 264 may be unnecessary.

Second, the modifications are modest and clarify existing sections of the Criminal Code rather than proposing new sections of untested criminal legislation.

Finally, there are some serious concerns around the implementation of Bill C-273.

First, we can expect that clarifying the Criminal Code in this manner will lead to an increase in its use. Increased use of these provisions may draw more youth into the criminal justice system, many of whom would fare best if dealt with outside the justice system.

Second, the committee should consider how the increased use of the Criminal Code will impact school-based responses to bullying. Could the adversarial nature of the criminal justice process inhibit community-based responses to bullying?

Finally, it remains unclear whether legislation reduces bullying. In the United States between 2000 and 2010, over 125 pieces of legislation were passed mostly at the state level yet the problem seems to remain as persistent as ever in the U.S.

To conclude, bullying among children and youth requires a community-level approach. On some occasions cyberbullying may escalate to a point where the Criminal Code is necessary to protect victims and the community. Bill C-273 appears to be a modest modernization of existing Criminal Code provisions, but at what cost?

Consideration should be given to the possibility that the increased use of the Criminal Code will create a chill on the community-level approach, particularly by drawing more youth into the criminal justice system.

Refereeing cyberspace is a difficult task. Our best approach is to empower parents, educators, and children and teens themselves to work together.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to call to order meeting number 61 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Pursuant to our order of reference of Wednesday, June 6, 2012, we'll deal today with Bill C-273, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cyberbullying).

Before we get started, let me do a couple of housekeeping things, if you don't mind.

First of all, I will be leaving in a few minutes and then coming back again. Madame Boivin will be taking the chair, which I really appreciate. So behave.

We're having witnesses for one hour. I will introduce them in a moment. Then we will go to the clause-by-clause part. That will be the end of this meeting. Then I'll start a new meeting for the subcommittee on agenda, assuming we have time.

If for some reason the clause-by-clause part takes too long, we have agreement around the table to deal with Bill C-55 next week, starting with the minister on Monday. This is just a little heads up in case this takes longer than we anticipate, because you never know.

I have one other housekeeping item before I introduce the witnesses. I'll take a motion to approve the budget. It's $2,800 for this actual study that we're doing right now.

[Pierre Jacob, NDP, Brome—Missisquoi, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I might be last, but I'm certainly not least.

My question is for Ms. Craig and Ms. Shariff.

Bill C-273 is lacking when it comes to prevention, rehabilitation and an overall strategy on bullying. We, in the NDP, take cyberbullying very seriously. I would like you to comment on two things.

First, Dr. André Grace said that young bullies are often dealing with other social problems. He hoped that the government could develop a legislative framework and could consider the communities, schools and parents as part of the solution.

Also, Finland has the KiVa program, which is thought to be one of the best anti-bullying programs in the world. Instead of expelling the bully, discussions between the bully, the victim and other children are arranged. Including the entire community is at the heart of the effort to fight bullying.

I would like you to comment on these two things, Ms. Shariff. Then, Ms. Craig could tell us what she thinks.

[Cathryn Palmer, Vice-President, Canadian Association of Police Boards]

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to offer our comments on this legislation, which is very important to our organization.

I will be coming at this from a slightly different perspective than the previous two very learned speakers did.

First, I'd like to just mention, if I could, a little bit about the organization I'm representing. The Canadian Association of Police Boards was founded in 1989, motivated by a desire to find common ground among police governors on matters of mutual concern, matters that have a national implication. We are the national organization of police service boards and commissions providing civilian oversight and governance of municipal and first nations policing in most parts of Canada.

The police boards and commissions that are our members are responsible for the more than 75% of municipal policing in Canada. We manage the services, set priorities in our municipalities, establish policy, and represent public interest through the civilian governance and oversight process.

Local policing today, as you know, involves a number of major functions besides dealing with crime. Our officers are in schools, they assist people suffering from mental illness, they prevent social victimization, they police international waterways, they're involved in national security and anti-terrorism-related matters, they participate in integrated and joint policing projects—and the list goes on. Often they are the agency of first resort when other programs are reduced or eliminated due to fiscal challenges that municipalities face.

We have a duty to ensure that police officers have the tools at hand to make appropriate decisions that protect public safety, especially the safety of our children.

We also believe that the laws they enforce should reflect our values and principles and what we stand for in our communities.

If a law can provide the push needed to change both an offending behaviour and the related attitudes towards that behaviour, then we have to support it.

In 2009, a resolution was voted on and approved by our membership. It reads as follows:

WHEREAS new technologies allow individuals to increasingly enter private domains; and

WHEREAS these same technologies allow individuals to hide their identities while targeting others; and

WHEREAS cyber-bullying is increasingly affecting Canadian youth; and

WHEREAS current legislation does not criminalize cyber-bullying;

THEREFORE be it resolved that the Canadian Association of Police Boards request the Federal Government pass legislation to increase and strengthen current Criminal Code provisions to criminalize cyber-bullying behaviours and to increase the accountability of technological service providers for ongoing abuses of their systems.

You can see that this resolution supporting amendment of the Criminal Code as well as increasing culpability of Internet service providers around the issue of cyberbullying was fully supported by the membership of CAPB.

Each year, copies of approved resolutions are sent to the appropriate federal and provincial ministers to ask for feedback and commentary.

I would like to read to you the response we received from the Minister of Public Safety at that time, the Honourable Peter Van Loan. Minister Van Loan wrote:

Concerning the Association's resolution on cyber-bullying, I agree that we must protect our children. Bullying in any form is unacceptable social behaviour. This Government has taken a number of actions to raise awareness and prevent bullying through activities carried out by the National Crime Prevention Center and the creation of a partnership between the RCMP and the Canadian Teachers' Federation to provide young people with information about how to identify, deal with and put an end to cyber-bullying. There is no more important role for Government than the safety and protection of Canada's must vulnerable population, our children.

We applaud the government for being proactive with these measures to educate and try to prevent cyberbullying, but we strongly believe that their efforts do not go, and have not gone, far enough. We need to bring our criminal laws up to date regarding modern technologies and the potential abusers of those same technologies as they do have an impact on our society.

Part of our responsibility as an oversight body is to ensure that the police have the proper tools they need to do their jobs effectively. Sometimes these tools come in the form of legislation without which their hands are tied.

It is from this perspective that I appear before you in support of Bill C-273, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cyberbullying). The Canadian Association of Police Boards supports the proposed legislative amendments, as they reflect the influence that modern technologies have in our daily life.

Many concerns arise for law enforcement around the issue of cyberbullying. The Nova Scotia task force report on bullying and cyberbullying states:

Cyberbullying poses a particular challenge to the community because it happens in a sort of “no man’s land”. The cyber-world is a public space which challenges our traditional methods of maintaining peace and order in public spaces. It is too vast to use traditional methods of supervision.

In simplest terms, this bill clarifies that existing sections of the Criminal Code apply to communications made by means of the computer or electronic device. We agree and we fully support this.

We also agree that tougher legislation alone is not a cyberbullying strategy, but one part of a broader national anti-bullying strategy that is needed.

Similar to comments made previously, last week I had the opportunity to listen to a young recruit constable on the Edmonton Police Service deliver her final project presentation, which was on creating a bully-free Alberta. Constable Cunningham very clearly stated that bullying is a social problem that requires an understanding of human relationships; we need to purposely promote positive social development in our youth; all children involved in bullying accidents—perpetrators, victims, and bystanders—must be included and considered in interventions; and we will effect the most change with the largest group, which is bystanders. She stated: “We need to intervene at multiple levels if we are to effect real change in bullying in our society.”

Thus, this legislation is seen perhaps as just one tool that is necessary at this point. Cyberbullying can be a very serious crime with real victims and, for some, a crime that has some very tragic outcomes.

Our duty today, to borrow a phrase from the former Minister of Public Safety, is to assist in any way to identify, deal with, and put an end to cyberbullying. There is no more important role for us, as the association representing civilian oversight of municipal police in Canada, than the safety and protection of Canada's most vulnerable population, our children. We believe the amendments to the Criminal Code put forward in Bill C-273 will be one step towards that goal.

Thank you.

[Professor Shaheen Shariff, Associate Professor, Department of Integrated Studies in Education, McGill University, As an Individual]

Thank you for inviting my submission today.

I'm an academic and researcher at McGill University and I have studied legal and policy-related issues regarding cyberbullying for approximately 10 years. I currently hold a five-year grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and an inaugural digital citizenship grant from Facebook.

Although cyberbullying is not specifically mentioned in Bill C-273, I have concerns about some of the inconsistencies in the bill, as we heard in the questions posed to MP Hedy Fry.

Cyberbullying can involve such acts as criminal harassment, threat of sexual assault, defamatory libel, extortion, identity fraud, impersonation with intent, intimidation, as well as sexting, many of which can currently be addressed under the Criminal Code.

My concern is also that there is no mention of smart phones, digital media.... I'm skipping over my notes because I know I don't have a lot of time.

My biggest concern is that the code applies to everyone. It talks about everyone. I'm worried that this amendment is in response, as Ms. Fry said, to a lot of media reports related to cyberbullying and related suicides.

The problem here is that we should be looking at two sets of audiences. One is adults, who are mature enough to be held culpable for some of these crimes. They're old enough to know what they're doing. What we're finding in our research, though, is that young people, digital natives—these are children growing up immersed in digital technologies—quite often don't realize what they're doing.

The norms and perceptions of harm by digital natives have changed. These kids, as young as eight, are on Facebook, even though it's illegal to be on Facebook under age 13. There is a higher tolerance for insults, jokes, and pranks. There's less consideration of impact on others. There's less recognition of boundaries between public and private spaces online. There's less awareness of legal risks, which is where I would argue for improved education on legal literacy.

Perpetrators of cyberbullying are often victims as well as perpetrators. This would place them in an awkward position if this code were amended and they were ultimately charged. We might be overreacting. We might be putting the wrong kids in jail.

A lot of kids are dealing with mental health issues. We've seen that putting young people in jail when they have mental health issues is a problem. We've repeatedly seen coverage of Ashley Smith when she was incarcerated, and the problems she had.

An Austrian study found that anger and fun are at the top of youth motivations to cyberbully. In question time I can cover some of the cases, should anyone have questions regarding exactly what I mean.

In light of these shifting social norms, amending the code might result in charges for the wrong reasons.

The other thing is that adults.... When you talk about the different audiences, adults are the worst models of behaviour, and yet so much of the focus has been on youth because of the media spotlight on youth. I fear that this amendment is being brought about just to calm the public's fears, that something is being done.

We need to do a lot more research. We need to look at how much the legal community knows and understands about how digital natives are using the Internet.

Our five-year research with SSHRC is looking at the assumptions that underlie judicial reasoning when it's listening to cases of cyberbullying. Cyberbullying is extremely complex. There are so many facets to it. We really need to make sure we're targeting the right kinds of issues.

There's defamation. There's sexting, which as many of you know the police here and in the U.S. have been using child pornography laws to address.

Kids are posting things online without really thinking about it, and repeatedly we see patterns in our research where the kids are saying they were just having fun: “It was just a competition between friends.” They forgot about the victim. They weren't even thinking about the person they were teasing. It was just trying to have their voices heard over the din of the Internet. These were kids who were wanting attention.

Now, I'm not suggesting that there should be no consequences. I'm very much a supporter of discipline for young people, and I think that can be done through education. We need to have relevant consequences. I don't think these sorts of piecemeal amendments to the code will have a lot of impact.

With regard to the implications of this bill for youth, digital natives who are unaware of legal risks may end up with criminal records when they cannot differentiate the impact of their jokes and pranks from serious criminal liability. Although they should be disciplined, they also need to be educated in legal literacy. Criminal records or jail terms would reduce their chances of being accepted into good post-secondary educational institutions and limit their ability to find jobs in an already difficult market, resulting in increased burdens on social assistance. Ultimately, this could cost the government substantial resources and cost some children their potential to succeed.

A more thoughtful alternative would be to invest in education, support for teen mental health, increased sensitivity awareness, and legal literacy. Last year we gave evidence at the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights that looked at Canada's responsibility to protect children from cyberbullying under article 19 of the international Convention on the Rights of the Child. I'm sure many of you are aware of that report. That report brings together a very comprehensive range of issues that were raised by experts and researchers across Canada, and I think this committee ought to consider what was raised in that report.

One thing that was suggested was a children's commissioner. The other was a national strategy. I know that motion was defeated last year because it was controversial. But I think we need something, such as a task force that involves experts, to look at these issues and determine what legislation needs to be amended. How do we amend this legislation? What is the role of the law? Do we really want big-stick sanctions? A scholar at Harvard University, John Palfrey, made the same kind of plea to Congress, and he did this in 2009 when they wanted to amend their legislation.

My Australian colleagues, Kift, Campbell et al, are the ones who coined the term “big-stick sanctions”, because they don't really work given this context. Given that kids don't understand...they're not even differentiating between public and private spaces.

I have submitted a 25-page brief, as academics do, and I would urge you to read it or skim through it by tomorrow, before you make your comments. I really think this issue needs to have further consideration.

I have here—I can pass some of these around—my basic...almost my logo. For the last 10 years, as I've been studying cyberbullying, this is the reactive stance the schools and a number of provincial governments have taken to deal with these kinds of issues. I'm suggesting a much more proactive stance that addresses education.

We're talking about substantive law versus a positivist or more punitive law. Let's look at the pillars of our Constitution, our human rights laws, and let's see how we can help young people understand why they should not be engaging in this. The challenge is in bringing these kids to their own understanding. Engage the kids. They are the digital experts. Engage the kids in contributing to changes in legislation.

This is what we're doing.

Part of our research, if I may explain it quickly, with our grant from Facebook and SSHRC is doing surveys and focus groups with young people from the ages of nine to 17. We're asking them how they define the line between joking and teasing and criminal offences. How do they tell the difference when they're crossing the line to committing a crime? How do they define the difference between public and private spaces? In the third phase we will get the kids to develop online interactive projects. We'll engage the kids to do this, and that will get them thinking about how they're defining the line.

We've already piloted this in Vancouver, and we got some amazing responses. My website is www.definetheline.ca, and we've had a lot of responses to that. What we do is inform educators and policy-makers about the various legal—

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Ladies and gentlemen, I call this meeting back to order. This is meeting number 60 and we are dealing with private member's Bill C-273, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cyberbullying).

We are fortunate to have Professor Shariff with us, an associate professor from McGill University on integrated studies in education. She is here as an individual.

From PREVNet, we have Professor Craig, who is the professor of psychology at Queen's University.

Joining us by video conference, representing the Canadian Association of Police Boards, is Ms. Cathryn Palmer, vice-president.

We will go one at a time for presentations and we'll do them in the order you were introduced. You have a maximum of 10 minutes, and then we'll go to a question and answer period.

To start, Professor Shariff, you have the floor.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank our colleague, Ms. Fry, for presenting Bill C-273, which would amend the Criminal Code. It deals with cyberbullying.

I would like to publicly say that I appreciate the work you are doing. For our colleague, Dany Morin, from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, the entire multi-faceted issue of cyberbullying is also extremely important. As you said in your presentation, it is not necessarily the easiest thing to resolve. I do not think that Bill C-273 will stop cyberbullying, but it is certainly a step in the right direction.

In the letter you distributed on January 30, 2013, to support your bill, you said that the bill was going to be studied by the committee. You alluded to comments made by our colleague, Mr. Goguen, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice. According to him, it was perhaps…

a little narrow in scope.

You claim you are quite ready to amend your bill. But with respect to the provisions you mentioned earlier, I would like to know if you actually intend to amend it. Things are going to unfold quite quickly here. There is today's meeting and the one on Wednesday, during which we will meet with representatives from the department, and then we will start the clause-by-clause review. So I would like to take advantage of your being here as a witness to ask whether you intend to include section 423 of the Criminal Code, on bullying, in your bill, as well as sections 403, 264, 266, 271 and 346.

What do you intend to do?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and colleagues, for the opportunity to present to you Bill C-273, which is my private member's bill that seeks to clarify in the Criminal Code where cyberbullying is an offence.

I want to begin by thanking all of you, from every political party, who have supported my bill, as well as people like members of the Canadian Teachers' Federation and the Canadian Association of Police Boards, along with Jer's Vision and other groups that have supported the bill.

I want to clear this up right away. This bill does not add any new section to the Criminal Code. It asks that the sections of the Criminal Code be clarified to include communication by means of a computer under the areas of criminal harassment, false messages, and defamatory libel. Currently those three sections of the Criminal Code actually pertain to every single type of communication, whether newspapers, letters, telegrams, cable and television, telephones, or radio. All of those modes of communication fall under those three areas of the Criminal Code. The only one that doesn't—and that's because it's a new segment and the Criminal Code never brought itself up to speed on it—is using a computer as a means of communication.

All of these things are already there. I'm just asking that we add using a computer, because in theory the only thing that is actually protected, out of all of the communication means, is a computer. Every other means of communication was there.

I just wanted you to know that there have been a couple of misconceptions during the debates and so on about the bill, and I want to take those on right away. First and foremost, I was told that the reason this bill should not be considered was that the Senate was studying the issue of cyberbullying and therefore we should wait. We have seen the Senate report now. Actually the Senate report does not clarify anything. The Senate report actually only looks at talking about a task force, but it does mention certain areas that I'm trying to bring forward in my bill. I'll get to those in a minute.

The second misconception is that this bill is trying to criminalize children.

The third misconception—not misconception, but comment—is that more aspects of the Criminal Code than are currently there should be added, not simply those three areas: criminal harassment, false messages, and defamatory liable. In fact, it was the government, when it made its speech at the first reading, that suggested we should add other areas that currently do not include computers.

Lastly, I want to support anyone who has ever said that what we really need is an anti-bullying strategy that is comprehensive, that takes on all three levels of government, the private sector, NGOs, etc., and that deals with prevention and moves on to clarification under the Criminal Code and to assisting victims of bullying, etc.

I see cyberbullying as a public health issue, really, because it causes harm to others. It causes increased amounts of morbidity. People who do have depression are very prone to suicide under cyberbullying. So this strategy needs to be broadened eventually, but that doesn't mean the bill shouldn't be put in while we wait however many years it will take to come up with a conscientious strategy.

I just want to talk about the Senate's report. The Senate mentioned in its report that there is a need to study the issue further—which means, as we well know, that it will take another two or three years—and that we need to define what cyberbullying means. I thought the Senate would define cyberbullying, but it didn't.

Second, the Senate report highlighted witnesses' testimony stating that the sections of the Criminal Code dealing with harassment, which is what I'm talking about, effectively do not include electronic means of communication, which is what I'm asking for them to do.

The Senate report recommended that restorative justice initiatives be a key component of any coordinated strategy. I agree with that as we look down the road at developing a coordinated strategy. But the question is, as we wait to put all the i's and all the t's in place, while we dot them and cross them, how many people will be harassed? How many people would see their mental illnesses actually precipitated even further, and how many people could die? I am not being melodramatic here. We know that people have committed suicide as a result of cyberbullying. I think we should really take that into consideration in terms of timeliness of this issue.

Now, I've heard from a number of people that this bill will criminalize children, and that kids must be kids. Well, look, we all know the saying that “sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me”, and we all know that words hurt. We've seen bullying in schools: you push and you shove, and you call names, etc.

One of the things that differentiates cyberbullying from that kind of bullying—and I have been told so by many people who have been cyberbullied—is that if you're being bullied somewhere, you can leave. You can go home. You can get away from it all. You can have your friends and your family and all kinds of people to support you. But this isn't true about cyberbullying; it follows you into your home. It follows you into your computer. It follows you wherever you go, so that you cannot get away from it.

The other thing we say about bullying is that the best revenge is to grow up and be successful, and that tells everybody that when they bullied you they were really being ridiculous. That doesn't happen with cyberbullying. The thing about cyberbullying is that it never stops. What was said about you when you were 10 or 16 or 20 or 30 remains there in cyberspace forever, to be Googled about you when you're 90. Even after you've died, it is there about you.

If it's a false message and if it's criminal harassment, then it really defames your character, to the extent that it can harm your ability to pursue your own career and your ability to be successful in whatever you do. It shames your family, and it creates the kind of harm that you can't run away from anymore, as you used to do when somebody said bad things about you.

The reason we have sections in the Criminal Code dealing with criminal harassment, false messages, and defamatory libel is that we know those things are harmful. What I'm saying is that adults are also victims of cyberbullying, not just children.

When bullying crosses the line from just having mean things said about you to become a criminal act, such as criminal harassment, false messages, and defamatory libel, then it becomes a criminal matter, and the court treats it that way. If you use a telephone to do it, if you use television to say it, if you use a telegram, if you print it in a letter to the newspaper, or if you send it to someone in the mail via a newspaper, the courts and the police are able to track who sent it and where they sent it. They're able to get the telephone companies, the stations, and the newspapers to say exactly who sent that letter.

You cannot do that with a computer. One of the things about the computer today, while it's a good thing and we all applaud the digital medium and how it has really changed the world...the point is that it is anonymous. It's the anonymity that has allowed people to stray from simply saying nasty things to moving forward into sometimes crossing the line to criminal activity. This is where we're looking at dealing with it: when it crosses that line. Right now, you can't tell who's doing that and who is sending the message, but you could if they had used any other means of communication.

I want to talk a bit about this happening with adults. We need look no further than right here in Ottawa, where a woman, Ms. Katz—and this is open information, so I'm not giving you private information—was cyberbullied because she tweeted a bad review of a restaurant. The owner of the restaurant went on to impersonate Ms. Katz, so there is identity fraud involved there in e-mailing her boss and creating an online dating profile for this woman. Of course, she took it to court because she could, and it was obvious who was doing it; there was no anonymity there. It was the restaurant owner. The restaurant owner was convicted on two counts of defamatory libel and sentenced to two years in prison.

Justice Lahaie stated at the time that Ms. Simoes, who is the person who did the bullying, “was vindictive, vicious, and highly personal” in her “anonymous attacks against Elayna Katz” and that they were “akin to cyberbullying”. The judge said, “Cyberbullying of this nature can drive people to more tragic consequences than what happened here.” Justice Lahaie went on to say, “Unlike graffiti”, cyberbullying “can never be fully washed away.” I've heard this from a number of people, of whatever age. Young people have told us they cannot escape it. Young people have said this follows them through their lives as they get older.

We know that someone can cyberbully in the workplace. You and that other person are going up for some sort of promotion and competing against each other and suddenly there are anonymous things to the boss, with someone saying things about you that aren't necessarily true.

It not only happens in the workplace; it also happens in the House of Commons. We've seen it here, in the House of Commons, where someone decides it's okay to defame or to libel or to spread false messages causing harm.

We saw it in the case of Amanda Todd in British Columbia, where the actual bullying was not simply bullying but criminal harassment. It in fact affected her life, and she committed suicide.

Rebecca Marino of British Columbia was a very promising tennis player. She suffered with depression, and she was cyberbullied. People said that she should be killed, that we should get her. People said negative things about her. It increased her depression, and in fact she has now quit. She has closed down any computer and social media that she had. She has quit tennis. And she was carded; she was a seeded player in the world.

Now, at second reading of this bill, I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice say that we need to see more sections, not just the three, clarified. He named, for instance, section 264.1, uttering threats; section 266, assault; section 271, using the computer for sexual assault; section 346, extortion; section 403, identity fraud and impersonation with intent, as we saw with this other lady here; and section 423, intimidation.

This is an issue that goes beyond partisanship, and I hope we can all work together to make this happen.

Mr. Chair, if you can give me one more minute, I'd like to address the concerns around a comprehensive strategy. I agree with this; I think we need to talk about this as a secondary event that we should get on and look at in terms of a comprehensive ability to deal with other levels of government, NGOs, private sector workplaces, etc., to deal with the issue of cyberbullying. This bill was never intended to deal with any of those things; it was just to look at the issue immediately that was causing a lot of harm to people and costing them their jobs and their lives.

I just want to say that the anonymity of the Internet is a problem here in its ability to shield the identity of the person who is doing these criminal activities. It has led to a viciousness not normally seen in face-to-face bullying. Let's not forget that anyone can be a bully, especially if you have anonymity to hide behind.

Finally, this bill presents a logical and important step towards ensuring that bullies who pursue this brand of criminal activity and online cruelty and harm to individuals are appropriately punished and recognize the seriousness of what they do when they cross the line.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Ladies and gentlemen, I will call the meeting to order. This is meeting number 60 of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Just before we go to the orders of the day, I will let you know that Bill C-55 is in the House today. It's going to come here quickly, so I thought we would have a subcommittee on agenda in the last half-hour of Wednesday's meeting. We'll put that aside so we can make some adjustments to what we had planned due to government legislation coming to this committee.

Today the orders of the day are pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, June 6: Bill C-273, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cyberbullying). The author of that private member's bill is the Honourable Hedy Fry. The member is here to discuss her bill. We have her for the first hour.

The floor is yours, Ms. Fry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

It's Bill C-273 on cyberbullying.

If you have witnesses whose names have not been submitted, make sure you get them in so we can make those arrangements for that week. We'll be dealing with it that week.

Thank you very much, and the meeting is adjourned.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

A recorded vote has been called.

(Motion negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)

That's the end of today's agenda.

Just so committee members know, when we return after our break we will be dealing with Bill C-273, the private member's bill from Ms. Fry.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

That's it. Thank you very much.

Thank you to our panel for coming this afternoon.

I want to thank the Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness for coming.

I want to thank the RCMP for being here. My grandfather was an RCMP officer and, in fact, in the Musical Ride. We're very proud of the work he did, and I want to thank you for your service.

Just as a reminder to committee members, it would be preferable that amendments come in advance. We will be doing this bill clause by clause in the second hour of our Wednesday meeting, so amendments to Bill S-9 would be greatly appreciated 24 hours in advance.

Also, to all parties here, if you have witnesses you're interested in seeing for the two studies we'll do after we get back from our break week, on Bill C-273 and Bill C-394, the two private member's bills, if you would provide those to the clerk in the near future, that would be greatly appreciated.

With that, we'll adjourn and call it a day.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

It was Bill C-279. Bill C-273 and Bill C-279—

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Are you talking about Bill C-273 or Bill C-279?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

You are always nice.

Just to make sure that everybody understands me, I will repeat it in English.

The motion was presented. It was the same motion we adopted without any additions as a committee, and we worked in this committee in a very, I'd say, collaborative way up until this point. We agreed because we thought we didn't want them sent back after all the work we had not yet done, just as is, to the House. It's the same principle.

Maybe everybody has to breathe in a bit. We might finish if we stop all of this. Maybe the light will come and hit people or whatever, but let's move on.

To ask for a reason when there was not even one asked when.... I would like to know why it is so different on Bill C-279, when we even voted yesterday unanimously in the House of Commons on Bill C-273 and we agreed to have the 30 days.

At some point in time, let's move.