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.

Justice and Human Rights

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the 19th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights regarding the recommendation not to proceed further with Bill C-273.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed that we are debating this recommendation not to proceed with Bill C-273, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cyberbullying).

This legislation was supported very strongly by the Canadian Teachers' Federation and by the Canadian Association of Police Boards, both of whom appeared as witnesses at committee. Thousands of Canadians are using the same social media now to ask people to speak to their MPs and ask them to vote against the proposal not to proceed further with the bill.

The bill was supported at second reading by the New Democratic Party. In fact, the government made a speech at first reading in which it suggested that this was a good bill and that what was wrong with it was that it did not expand to other areas of the Criminal Code. The government suggested some other areas of the Criminal Code, such as uttering threats, false identity and so on. I accepted that those could come as amendments. I expected them to come to committee as amendments.

This legislation went to second reading because the NDP supported it and also because nine members of the Conservative Party voted to send it to committee. It is a tradition in the House that when one votes to send something to committee it is because that person agrees with the principle of the bill, the person agrees with what the bill would do. The person may not agree with all of the methods by which the bill would do it, and that is why it goes to committee for amendments to change it to make it stronger. One does not say, “We do not like it”, after having promised to send it to committee and having had opportunities to bring amendments and then bringing none. My own colleague on the justice committee asked for amendments, begged for amendments, was prepared to suggest amendments, but none of this happened.

The bill is inherently about cyberbullying, the means of using the Internet, electronic media and social media in order to bully or, as I said in my bill, to criminally harass in order to spread defamatory libel or false messaging. Currently the Criminal Code defines very clearly the means of communication by which one cannot do this. To suggest that this is redundant is a fallacy. It is not redundant. The modes of communication that cannot be used are clearly listed, such as newspapers, radio, television, letters, telephone. All of these give the police the ability, when looking to lay charges, to demand the names of the people who used one of these modes of communication. They can search, get private numbers, tap phones and do all of those kinds of things.

The police boards are supporting this legislation because currently, as the hon. member for the NDP said, a crown prosecutor will lay charges. A crown prosecutor cannot lay charges when the person doing the criminal activities is not known. Currently the police do not have the tools and this is why they support the bill. They do not have the tools to be able to make an Internet service provider say who the person doing the false messaging or the criminal harassment is.

I refer to the tragic case of Amanda Todd, the young woman who committed suicide. It was criminal harassment on the Internet against this woman but the police could not bring charges because they could not find out who the person was. If the person had used the media, a telephone, wrote letters, went on television or the radio and said things, the police would have those tools. They do not have the tools for the Internet. The suggestion that it is inherent in the Criminal Code and that some judges have suggested that it applies to new media is not a good enough answer. We cannot only depend on interpretation of the law, the law has to clearly state.

My bill suggests that the law should move into the digital age and clearly name digital media and computers and other things that are used to spread criminal activity such as harassment, false messaging and as the government said uttering threats, identity fraud and so on. It should therefore be clearly stated.

What is the problem when other modes of communication are clearly stated in the bill? Yet everyone believes that we cannot state the newest mode of communication, which has not been put into the Criminal Code. No one is trying to change the Criminal Code. One is clarifying it by adding a new mode of communication. It is as simple as that.

I am quite prepared to add other areas, but unless it is clearly stated in the Criminal Code, it is left constantly to interpretation. That is my point. It is said that many witnesses disagreed with the bill, and I would like to say I have read the proceedings of the committee extremely thoroughly. Many of the witnesses, the police boards, were there; they supported the bill and said that they actually needed those tools to find the person who was promulgating these criminal activities.

We also have the Canadian Teachers' Federation that said it is not good enough to prevent. Prevention alone does not work. There has to be some kind of punitive action in some way to deal with older young people over 16 who clearly know what they are doing.

Again, nothing I am suggesting in this bill would take away the right of a judge to make a decision based on the individual facts of the case, on the age of the person or on all of those things that cause judges to make decisions and decide on sentencing. There is nothing that would prevent a judge from suggesting that looking at this issue and providing a sentence that is restorative justice cannot be done. No one is suggesting that.

There was also a discussion. I noted that most members of the New Democratic Party and the Conservative Party asked people who were witnesses a very clear question, which they knew was misinformation. That was “Will this bill stop cyberbullying?”

I said, within my bill, in every speech I made in this House and at the committee, that this is only one small thing that would give the police the tools they need so that identification could be made and charges brought.

We are not just talking about children. Continually, when witnesses talked about trying to criminalize children, the committee heard me clearly say that cyberbullying is not only amongst children and amongst school children. It occurs in the workplace. It occurs in the communities. We have seen examples of this constantly. I named two, because I only had 10 minutes. I could not give an exhaustive list of examples.

Here we have all of these things that have been misrepresented. The committee had an opportunity to suggest that this is not just about children. It is also about adults. It is merely a clarification of the Criminal Code. Restorative justice and all of those things can still occur.

I am suggesting that this is not simply bullying. The thing about cyberbullying is that there is an anonymity associated with it. People can give a false name, on Twitter or whatever, and can say whatever they want. When people reach outside of calling people names, like “Oh, you're fat” or “Oh, you're ugly”, which is psychologically damaging, when people reach into areas where there is criminal harassment, uttering of threats, libel and false messaging, these are criminal acts.

When individuals over 16 or individuals who are adults do this, they do it because they know they cannot be found. My point in this bill is to say that we should give the police the tools to go to an ISP, just as they can tap phones, ask the newspaper to give the name of the person who wrote the letter, ask the telephone company where that telephone call from. They want to be able to do this with the ISPs. The police do not have that ability right now.

The misinformation spread around this bill is actually astounding. I do not understand. If there is a decision not to support the bill, then say so. The government should not go through listening to witnesses, allowing this kind of promulgation of misinformation to occur, not answering the questions properly and then asking everyone at the end of their testimony if they think the bill would stop cyberbullying. Of course it would not.

The bill would only give the police the tools they asked for, simply to bring a charge and, second, to identify the person who is hiding behind the anonymous mask of the Internet.

It is also very clear. I said in every speech I made here and at committee that there needs to be a national cyberbullying strategy, which must include all of the things we do in public health. This is a public health issue. Bullyers and the bullied tend to suffer mental health consequences of bullying whether people bully or are bullied.

Therefore, public health will talk about prevention. It will talk about public education. It will talk about dealing with the mental health issues of whatever is going on among the bullies and the bullied. However, it will also talk about law enforcement. We see that in addiction.

However, there are many stages and many facets to a national strategy, not simply prevention. We know it does not work alone. It is bringing all the facets together. When people suggested it, I said that I think this is what we eventually need to do.

Currently, what the bill seeks to do is to respond to the police—

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-273 in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank her for introducing the bill and giving us a chance to talk a little more about the scourge of cyberbullying.

All forms of bullying are unacceptable, including for instance, the bullying that we are often subjected to, as mentioned by the member who spoke before me. We realize that violence is not only physical, but it can also be verbal.

I would like to put this debate in context, because the committee on which I sit adopted a report. As justice critic, I have gone through Bill C-273 very carefully. In fact, I always try to do so, for every bill that is introduced in the House and that comes before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Whether a bill introduced by my colleagues that will affect the justice system, a private member's bill from the government side, a government bill, a bill from the Senate, or one introduced by the Liberals, I examine them all the same way. When someone wants to change one or more sections of the Criminal Code, I consider whether the change is necessary, whether it really does what it is supposed to do, and so on. Anyone who is a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights with me knows this. That is how I express myself. That is how I examine each and every issue.

I cannot give preferential treatment under the pretext that the proposed bill comes from my party, the Liberals, the Green Party or the Bloc Québécois. It is important to remain unbiased.

To begin with, clearly, no one in this House would ever say they are in favour of cyberbullying—absolutely not. However, since the devil is always in the details, we had to look carefully at what was in this bill.

I give the member for Vancouver Centre full marks for her interest in this issue and her dedication to the cause. Her passion was obvious when she appeared before the committee.

The problem is that from a legal standpoint, in terms of the Criminal Code, it was redundant. Originally, Bill C-273 targeted certain sections. In order to provide a bit of context, the member sent out a letter. In it, she suggested that some sections of the Criminal Code be clarified by including “communications by means of computer” in section 264, which addresses criminal harassment; “false messages” in subsections 372(1), 372(2) and 372(3); and “defamatory libel” in section 298.

In the current Criminal Code, the section addresses all forms of communication by telephone, radio, newspaper and so on. The Criminal Code already contains a very general provision. Adding cyberbullying as such or as an offence by means of computer—defining how it happens—is like talking about murder. It does not matter if I commit murder with a gun or a knife; it is still murder. That is the problem we faced with this bill, which changed nothing. In fact, it simply added the word “computer” in its strictest sense.

I listened closely to the speech before mine. It is clear that when we talk about cyberbullying, we are all aware of the tragic cases of Marjorie Raymond, Amanda Todd, Jamie Hubley, Mitchell Wilson and Jenna Bowers-Bryanton.

However, we cannot let people believe that the situation would be different or that people who should have been charged were not because the Criminal Code is what it is today. That is not the case.

The member had no case to submit to the committee to prove that without this amendment, there would be no way to prosecute someone.

On the contrary, witnesses who have no connection to this file, such as police officers or others, explained that the provisions are there. Sometimes charges are not laid because people do not necessarily want to take matters further. That is one of the points I wanted to address.

Some people in committee suggested that other cases could have been added.

Why simply focus on issues involving criminal harassment, false messages and defamatory libel, when we could have added—as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice said—cases of bullying included in section 423 of the Criminal Code and cases of identity theft included in section 403? There was a list of Criminal Code provisions.

The risk remains the same, even with the Conservatives. By making piecemeal changes to the Criminal Code, we might create situations in which decision-makers, crown attorneys and defence attorneys, will use the discrepancies that exist in the Criminal Code when they are before the courts.

We received amendments in committee, and the Liberals tried somehow to make up for these deficiencies by adding clauses. Nonetheless, when we have just one hour to do our work and amendments are proposed to seven different criminal offences, it starts to feel like improvisation. We knew that all these criminal provisions would not stop charges from being laid.

In one of her rulings, Justice L'Heureux-Dubé clearly said that the people who drafted the Criminal Code did a fine job of it. Perhaps we should stop butchering it, as the Conservatives so freely do. The people who drafted it realized that society would evolve and that at some point we might have different technologies. To prevent these sections from becoming ineffective, little catch-all phrases were added to allow computer-related offences to be added.

I do not want the people watching us to think that cutting the analysis of Bill C-273 short is a setback in dealing with cyberbullying. That is absolutely not the case. This will never prevent a crown prosecutor from laying charges, if the facts are there to back the charges.

I think my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord did a very good job of proving the other point that was extremely important in committee, and that is the fact that the vast majority of witnesses heard during the two sitting days were not at all of the view that criminalizing this behaviour was the way to go.

Yes, bullying hurts. Anyone who has ever been bullied in any way, even by colleagues in the House who are not of the same opinion, knows that we owe each other respect.

Some words used may be harsh. Sometimes we see certain behaviour on the Internet or on Facebook. Yesterday I read that some young people got involved in a fight on Facebook. That shows how far it can go and how much it can hurt. However, we must not think that not proceeding represents a step backward.

I think other approaches will be used. All the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights who took part in the study of the bill agreed that there would definitely be action to recommend.

I will simply tell my colleague who introduced the bill that even her critic, who serves on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and who made a considerable effort to have the bill amended, understood. I do not want to offer her any tips, but if she ever went back to the idea of considering aggravating factors at sentencing, where the case really concerns cyberbullying or any form of bullying, looking at sentences more specifically is part of the arsenal. That might be more appropriate. Even her colleague came to the conclusion that much more work would have been needed on the amendments and that it would virtually have been necessary to rewrite the bill in order to do what she was trying to do.

I will say no more about it, except that this is a question of logic for us and that we in this House will not change our logic regarding criminal law, regarding criminal justice, regardless of the party concerned.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleagues may know, the chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights reported back to the House of Commons recommending that Bill C-273, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cyberbullying), not proceed further. Specifically, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, the committee recommended to the House of Commons that it not proceed further with Bill C-273 on the basis that it is redundant, inconsistent with existing Criminal Code provisions and otherwise problematic.

I think we can all agree that the issues of cyberbullying and bullying affect many young Canadians. We are all too familiar with recent tragic cases. However, I think we can all agree that the issue requires a multi-pronged range of responses by all levels of government, schools and other institutions, and indeed by all Canadians. None of us should tolerate bullying. From this perspective, Bill C-273 has helped to draw attention to the issue, and for this I would like to recognize the member for Vancouver Centre for her efforts.

The committee had the opportunity to hear from a number of witnesses who are well versed in the bullying and cyberbullying problem. The vast majority of witnesses cautioned against the approach proposed by Bill C-273. They indicated, among other things, that an increased criminal law approach for the issue would not be effective, would predominantly target Canada's youth population, and might put a chill on the use of other appropriate Criminal Code offences in relation to bullying in some more serious cases. In short, Bill C-273 was not widely supported by the experts in the field. Perhaps to put it a little more strongly, Bill C-273 was rejected as an appropriate response by the majority of expert witnesses.

In addition to these policy objections, the government has also found Bill C-273 to be problematic from a purely technical perspective. The Criminal Code already prohibits cyberbullying through a number of existing provisions, such as criminal harassment, uttering threats and defamatory libel, to name a few.

Bill C-273 proposes amendments to some of these relevant sections, namely section 264, criminal harassment, and section 298, defamation, to clarify that they can be committed over the Internet or a computer system. However, these amendments raise many issues.

The proposed amendments are problematic and redundant because the criminal law generally does not distinguish between the means or mode used to commit a crime. For example, the offence of criminal harassment, which does not refer to the use of Internet, has already been judicially interpreted to apply to conduct created through the use of the Internet.

Bill C-273's approach to the cyber dimension of bullying is also problematic because it is incomplete. Specifically, the proposed approach is incomplete because it proposes to amend only two of several offences that could be charged in the context of cyberbullying. There are many other offences, such as offences of intimidation in section 423, uttering threats in section 264.1 and personation in section 403, that could apply to criminal cyberbullying behaviour but that were not included in Bill C-273.

There is a well-established rule of statutory interpretation that says to expressly include something in one section means that its exclusion in another must be intended. In other words, if we were to make explicit that the offences of defamation and criminal harassment can be committed through the use of Internet or a computer system and not make the same clarification in other relevant offences, then this could very well lead courts to interpret the exclusion of this specification in these other offences as being intentional, i.e., that these other offences cannot be committed through the use of Internet or a computer system. This would not be the intention of Parliament.

Taking the repercussions of this proposed amendment one step further, it could also have a similar effect on non-bullying-related offences such as fraud. This could have the effect of rendering the Criminal Code offences that do not specify that they can be committed via computers and Internet ineffective in the cyber context. This amendment would have far-reaching and unintended negative consequences.

Bill C-273 is also problematic because it proposes to use terminology that is inconsistent with existing Criminal Code terminology. For example, clause 1 proposes to amend section 264, criminal harassment, to add:

(2.1) For greater certainty, paragraphs (2)(b) and (d) apply in respect of conduct that is communicated by means of a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet, or any similar means of communication.

However, the Criminal Code, in section 172.1, luring a child, already refers to new technologies as “by means of communication”, a term that is broadly defined by section 35 of the Interpretation Act. One of the advantages of this approach is that the phrase will not be overtaken by the evolution of technology and new modes of telecommunications, as would Bill C-273's proposed amendments.

Section 35 of the Interpretation Act defines telecommunications as “the emission, transmission or reception of signs, signals, writings, images, sounds, or intelligence of any nature by any wire, cable, radio, optical, or other electromagnetic or by any similar technical system.”

I agree that cyberbullying warrants responses by all levels of government, but the needed response is not necessarily criminal law reform. Consider, for example, the December 2012 report of the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights, “Cyberbullying Hurts: Respect For Rights in the Digital Age”. The committee heard over 40 witnesses, from almost as many organizations, and made six recommendations, none of which called for criminal law reform in these areas.

I would also note, for example, Nova Scotia's 2011 report, “Respectful and Responsible Relationships: There's No App for That”, also did not recommend criminal law reform in this area.

For these reasons, I would urge the House to accept the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to not further proceed with Bill C-273.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 19th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to Bill C-273, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cyberbullying).

The committee has studied the bill and has recommended to the House not to proceed further with the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Is there anything else to this item? No.

I'll take the vote, and if it passes, I will present this to the House tomorrow.

(Motion as amended agreed to)

That is the end of our meeting regarding Bill C-273. I'll take a one-minute recess for those who don't have to stay, and then for 15 minutes we'll have a meeting of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure. Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

That is important. The point here is to vote right. I would like to comment on this motion.

As I mentioned a little earlier, I am torn. I am caught in the middle and unable to determine the right thing to do. As you may not be aware, I have been touring across Canada for a number of months now, as part of a campaign called Pour les Jeunes / For the Kids. Everywhere I go in Canada, people are waiting for the federal government initiative, whatever it may be.

I do not hold it against the Conservatives that they voted against the national anti-bullying strategy in November. I had asked John Baird long before that whether the government was going to present something. When he confirmed that nothing was planned, I introduced the bill. If something has been developed in the corridors of the Conservative Party in the meantime so that another initiative is brought forward in this area, I will support it, if it is decent.

I agree with the first of the three points raised by Mr. Goguen, that Bill C-273 results in legislative contradictions, ambiguities and redundancies. I entirely agree on that.

I also agree on the third point. The third paragraph states that the overwhelming majority of witnesses indicated that there were problems. The two main supporters of Dr. Fry's motion are the police officer and the professor who testified. I can tell you that, when you work on the bullying and cyberbullying file, you see the same witnesses, even in the Senate, which published its report on cyberbullying in mid-December. When I checked the witness list, I saw that it included the same people.

It was not without reason that the Senate also did not recommend amending the Criminal Code as Dr. Fry wanted. It made other suggestions, including a national cyberbullying strategy, the creation of a position of commissioner for children, as well as other measures, but recommended none of what Dr. Fry was proposing. I nevertheless agree that the witnesses who appeared before us do not want this bill.

The second paragraph—and it is because of it that I would be uncomfortable voting for this motion—states:

Parliamentary review of the bullying issue still is on-going and legislation to introduce this matter is pre-mature.

I do not doubt the Conservative government's good will, but when we talk about

parliamentary review

and about the fact that it is already ongoing, I would like to know what it is. When we debated my bill and Dr. Fry's, you said that the Senate was already studying the issue, and you were right. You did not want to create any redundancy by starting a study by the committee, but, as far as I know, the Senate people have finished with the cyberbullying issue and will now move on to something else. I therefore fail to see what there is that is new. My motion that a national bullying prevention strategy be established is dead. That was the last initiative.

Unless you are alluding to the intergovernmental group created by a minister—I believe it was the Minister of Justice—last November. He said that the purpose of that intergovernmental working group was to reinforce and make amendments to the Criminal Code. The provincial governments were involved, particularly the ministers of public safety. The announcement was made in November, but we subsequently heard little about the project.

If that is what you are referring to, I would like you to tell me about it later. It would help me a great deal to know what that "ongoing" discussion means. There are also the words, "...legislation to introduce this matter is premature."

I was elected on May 2, 2011. Since then, however, five young Canadians have committed suicide after being victims of bullying.

Mr. Goguen has already named them. I am going to repeat their names and offer all my condolences to their families.

The first was Jamie Hubley, of Ottawa, who was bullied. However, there was another factor: he also suffered from mental problems. Bullying nevertheless played a role. He was bullied because of his sexual orientation.

Mitchell Wilson, of Pickering, was 11 years old and suffered from muscular dystrophy. He was bullied at school and in the city's streets because of his disease. He was 11 years old; he put a bag over his head and asphyxiated himself. He committed suicide at the age of 11. That is really too young to die.

Jenna Bowers-Bryanton, of Nova Scotia, was bullied by her schoolmates. She too was unable to bear it any longer. And yet she was a brilliant young girl. I am convinced that she could have survived that trial as an adult.

Marjorie Raymond, from my own province of Quebec, loved to sing and post videos of herself on YouTube. In their comments, people told her to go and kill herself.

Amanda Todd is another example. When I talk about bullying, I do not like to think of Amanda Todd because hers was such an extreme case that it went beyond the conventional problem of bullying suffered by our young people.

They say that legislation on this problem is premature. I am of course in favour of legislation being well constructed. Since I was elected, however, at least five young men and women have committed suicide, according to the media. I am convinced that there have been others whose stories were not reported by the media. This is only the tip of the iceberg. That is not to mention the other young people who manage to make it but who are subsequently scarred by the bullying they have suffered.

I really do not agree with you when you say it is premature. All the witnesses who appeared said the government must play a role. However, they did not necessarily agree on how that should be done.

Some say they entirely agree with me and that a national bullying prevention strategy should be established, regardless of what it contains. Others, such as the witness representing the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada whom we heard earlier today, believe that the federal government's role should be to avoid excessive involvement in the problem and to help the various Canadian communities deal with it on their own.

Even though the Government of Canada is not yet fully playing its role as a leader, several provinces mentioned by Mr. Goguen have adopted measures to combat bullying. That is very good and I support them wholeheartedly. Some school boards and schools have even formed their own anti-bullying programs. These are local efforts. I also offer them my full support. Families across Canada are talking about bullying. That is good too.

As for cyberbullying, something must be done, regardless of how the Government of Canada addresses the problem. Will Dr. Fry's bill achieve that? I do not think so. As I mentioned earlier in my speech, I do not believe that bill will prevent a single case of cyberbullying. When we talk to young people 10 to 15 years of age, they are not afraid of the law. They consider themselves invincible. In my opinion, the only positive aspect of this bill is what concerns adults who are involved in bullying. We must tighten the vise on adults who bully other adults. Adults who bully children: that is unacceptable.

As I mentioned, this bill makes me uncomfortable. I support paragraphs one and three but not paragraph two.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

This is for my unilingual francophone colleagues. I simply want to note that it is important for the NDP that written documents be provided in both languages. I know these are special circumstances and that everyone is demonstrating their good will by making compromises on bilingualism, but that is precisely why we are going to vote on my colleague Alexandrine Latendresse's bill, to raise the level of bilingualism in Canada and in Parliament.

I move:

That the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, recommends that the House of Commons do not proceed further with Bill C-273, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cyberbullying), because: Bill C-273 raises criminal policy and drafting concerns; Parliamentary review of the bullying issue is still on-going and legislation to address this matter is pre-mature, and; The overwhelming majority of witnesses appearing before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights have raised concerns with this legislation;

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I agree with Mr. Wilks on the importance of restorative justice, both as a principle and particularly with regard to the issues of bullying, because we are dealing with young offenders.

Having said that, and having listened as well to Madame Boivin, my only hope is that we can perhaps offer some amendments.

Whether it be on issues that relate to aggravated circumstances with respect to sentencing issues and the like, we have an opportunity here with respect to putting in some amendments that can limit certainly the scope of Bill C-273 as it now stands, and in putting forward limiting amendments make it more effective to deal with those specific situations whereby a sentencing amendment, etc., can be helpful.

My whole approach is to see how we can somehow take the opportunity informally, outside the committee, to fashion or craft limiting amendments that would make this work.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Chair, I assume everyone is aware that Bill C-273 is a problem. I have discussed the matter to some degree with my colleague Mr. Cotler. I was going to say Winkler. I apologize.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Chair, I would like to move the following motion: That the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, pursuant to Standing Order 97.1, recommends that the House of Commons do not proceed further with Bill C-273, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cyberbullying), because: Bill C-273 raises criminal policy and drafting concerns; Parliamentary review of the bullying issue is still on-going and legislation to address this matter is pre-mature, and; The overwhelming majority of witnesses appearing before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights have raised concerns with this legislation.

I believe we can all agree that cyberbullying is truly tragic and has very negative effects. There have been far too many suicides. In fact, just one is one too many. However, a multi-dimensional approach must definitely be adopted to address this social evil. We have heard about criminalization on many occasions.

We heard that criminalization of this sort of conduct is not what is necessary to curb the harm that it has created. None of us should tolerate cyberbullying; that's for sure. From this perspective, I guess we could say that Bill C-273 has helped us focus on this very important social issue, and certainly the member for Vancouver Centre should be congratulated for her efforts in focusing our attention on this very important problem. However, that said, Bill C-273 seeks to use criminal law to respond to conduct that is primarily not criminal. We've heard about being in the moment and not having criminal intent, and given the intent that Bill C-273 may be said to be targeting—bullying that constitutes criminal conduct—its proposed amendments are redundant and inconsistent and may even be said to be problematic when it comes to the Criminal Code.

The Criminal Code prohibits criminal bullying through existing provisions such as criminal harassment, uttering threats, and defamatory libel, to name a few. Bill C-273's proposed amendments to section 264, on criminal harassment, and section 298, on defamation, to clarify that they can be committed over the Internet or via computer, are not needed. This is because criminal law generally does not distinguish between means of mode used to commit crime, and certainly, as Mr. Wilks pointed out, the sections are wide enough to encompass this. So it's in essence not necessary, and for that reason, Mr. Chair, this is the motion that I'm proposing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

I want to thank our guests for joining us today, in the snowstorm and on the phone. Thank you very much for your input on this important discussion we're having on Bill C-273.

I will suspend while we let our guests leave and our Department of Justice officials come to the table.

With that, I will suspend for two minutes.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Okanagan—Coquihalla, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to focus my thoughts today on Bill C-273.

I'd like to start by welcoming our guests today, who are with us both electronically and in person.

I'd also like to highlight that Mr. Mitchell put out a very good report last November, “Family responses to bullying: Why governments won’t stop bullying until families step up”.

I'll be directing my questions to you, sir.

Last meeting we had Professor Shariff, an associate professor in the department of integrated studies in education at McGill, who noted she had some concerns regarding some of the inconsistencies in Bill C-273.

Both Professor Shariff and Professor Craig also voiced concerns from the CanadianCoalition for the Rights of Children, noting that Bill C-273 focuses exclusively on the criminalization of some youth behaviour without providing for further investment in preventive and rehabilitative programs.

Obviously, all of us agree that the intent behind the bill is laudable: to ensure that existing offences apply to bullying conduct that is criminal in nature where it's communicated through the use of the Internet. However, in my view, this raises a number of policy concerns that I mentioned at the last meeting.

I said that offences generally apply to specific conduct, even though the means used, such as the Internet, are not specified. For example, murder is murder regardless of the weapon or means used to commit that murder. Amending some of the offences that could apply to bullying, and then excluding others, for example, section 264.1—I think, Mr. Mitchell, you mentioned some of that in your comments—such as uttering threats, could become problematic. For example, the inclusion of a reference to the use of a computer or the Internet in some offences could be interpreted to mean that its exclusion from others is intentional such that other offences might not be interpreted to apply to conduct carried out with the use of a computer or the Internet.

I also said that its proposed terminology “...computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet, or any similar means of communication” is inconsistent with the provisions throughout the Criminal Code. Having two terms relating to the same medium, I would say, could cause confusion.

I said that in short, my view is that Bill C-273's proposed amendments to sections 264 and 298 would not enhance the Criminal Code's existing treatment of bullying that constitutes criminal conduct.

Focusing on your comments, Mr. Mitchell, how would you respond to some of these concerns?

[Paul Taillefer]

Let me say that I'm going to be speaking from an experience that's a bit dated, but anecdotally I believe that what's happening right now in teachers colleges, in pre-service as we call it, doesn't necessarily prepare teachers to take on that task. There are a lot of things they're taught to do. This may not necessarily be something they are taught to do to the extent that we need it to happen. There are, however, organizations within each province and territory that have taken on that mantle of responsibility and work with teachers' organizations in order to help teachers understand the roles they have to play and the responsibilities.

You would see that mostly with teachers who are actually in a teaching position. They would be getting some support on that level. That's very important for us at the Canadian Teachers' Federation. We believe that education for the teachers, for the students, and for the parents is a primary responsibility. However, we don't believe that it's necessarily an either-or proposition.

Bill C-273 has some important aspects to it, I think, such as modernizing the language in the Criminal Code. Things are changing rapidly in cyberspace, and I think it's important that this be reflected.

I don't think that when we look at the modernization of the Criminal Code it's to make it the front-line tool in order to stop cyberbullying. I think everybody around this table has talked about education, about responsibilities, and about working together and forming coalitions and a national strategy, but somewhere in there I think it's important for students to understand that they're going into a society where they have to be responsible citizens, where they have to understand that they have laws to follow. I think it's something that we should look at seriously.

When a student has a bad behaviour in class, the first thing you do is that you don't ban him from the school. I mean, there's incremental discipline. You talk to the student. You explain to him why his behaviour is not appropriate. You work through different phases. It's only in the hardest cases that you get to a point where you have to do something that drastic. That type of law is not meant for most people, but it is important that people understand how bad cyberbullying is and what effect it has on people.

At the beginning of this presentation, we had a list of people who lost their lives due to cyberbullying. It's not just for adults to reflect on how serious this problem is. I think students have to reflect on it also.

[Bill Belsey]

I'd be pleased to, and if you don't mind, that actually leads into the next point I was going to make in my presentation.

If we're thinking about how a bill might potentially impact these behaviours, we need to understand the mindset of a young person. I call this the perfect storm. You may refer to the handout you may have in front of you, for what we know about the teenaged brain.

All of us, when we're young people, live in the moment. We live in the sort of instantaneous moment. We don't make very good connections between cause and effect. Psychologists call it disinhibition. When people cyberbully, they don't see the face of the person they're hurting online. If you think about it, there's a teenage brain that is very much living in the moment, and we have what are called synchronous technologies, the favourites of young people, for texting and instant messaging, with cursors that flash “send, send, send”.

I would humbly and respectfully suggest to the committee that while this proposed bill may have its impact in the adult world, when a kid is living in that moment with the teenaged brain that is not making good connections between cause and effect and is using synchronous technologies, technologies that are of the moment, it's not a surprise that often good students, and typically great kids—because most kids are pretty great—often may end up doing things online that they would never think of doing in real life. I really don't think that a 14-year-old girl who's been jilted by a boyfriend or whatever, between period one and period two of classes, who's incredibly hurt and angry, will actually stop in the middle of that very harmful post or text and think, “Oh, wait a minute, there's Bill C-273. Maybe I'd better not do this.”

To speak to your question, we need to think about what is actually going on in the minds of teenagers. I do realize adults are engaged in cyberbullying, but my world is kids, and that's where kids are in terms of their mindset. I applaud the government for what it has done so far, but really, we have a long way to go, and we have to understand the reality of where cyberbullying lives and what it looks like.

I hope that addresses your question to some degree.

[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.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you.

I was the first in line, but it's okay, I'll go third.

I simply wanted to tell my colleagues that the approach to Bill C-273 and Bill C-394 was identical to the motion moved by Mr. Garrison. The motion was agreed to, challenged and then agreed to again. Mr. Anderson, who isn't allowed to vote, has shown up here out of the blue and raised some sort of procedural sticking point on the basis that the request has not been justified, when the motion has been agreed to and challenged before.

Since I prefer to have the chair listen to me when I speak, I will wait. I still have the floor. When you spend years at the appeal court, you fall into that kind of habit. When judges start speaking amongst themselves, you say

there's no fucking—

Sorry.

I withdraw that. He wasn't listening, in any case.

I was saying how nice you are.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

We also did it for Bill C-394 and Bill C-273, last week. We voted in favour of Bill C-273, sponsored by our Liberal colleague, Hedy Fry, so we could study those provisions thoroughly.

We are at clause 2 and we barely have an hour left. No doubt our new committee member, who has the right to speak but not to vote, has a number of questions because he did not have the benefit of hearing the various witnesses. Given that there is such interest in the topic, as we can see, and if the questions are, as they would say in English, perfectly

genuine and come from the heart,

we see no logical reason not to allow the extension, given the small window we have. December 10 is fast approaching. This isn't an unreasonable request, as we see it.

Committees of the House

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion to concur in the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights concerning the extension of time to consider Bill C-273.

Justice and Human Rights

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in relation to requesting an extension of 30 sitting days to consider Bill C-273, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cyberbullying).

Bullying

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I explained the last time I commented on this bill, I am saddened by the extent to which people, especially young people, are affected by bullying.

For example, we all remember Marjorie Raymond, a young, 15-year-old girl from Gaspésie who committed suicide last year, after years of bullying at school. We also remember Jamie Hubley, another 15-year-old from Ottawa, who took his own life last year after being humiliated and insulted by classmates because of his homosexuality.

We all want to put an end to bullying. However, the approach by the Conservative Party and the NDP will do nothing to address the issue. Even if the challenge is enormous, we already see many potential solutions, both in the provinces and abroad, and the fact that we only put off everything until later without committing to any action could leave us without a solution to fight against this serious problem affecting our society.

The federal government has a role to play in combatting bullying, and here it should be noted that the previous Liberal government was active in this regard. When I was first elected to the House in 2002, the then Minister of Justice, Martin Cauchon, initiated an anti-bullying ad campaign and boasted that through the national crime prevention strategy, the government of the day was involved in over a hundred projects across the country designed to deal with the question of bullying.

One example was the then minister for multiculturalism, Jean Augustine, who spoke in the House of the program called reaching across differences, which provided information and training to elementary school children in British Columbia to increase their awareness of the impact of discrimination and bullying.

Here we must remember that bullying needs to be addressed from multiple angles, as a question of justice, of safety and health, of multiculturalism, of education, of the status of women and so on. One cannot adopt a myopic approach that treats the matter as solely something for the criminal law to be addressed after the fact. Prevention is the key.

Regrettably, how to prevent bullying is not an easy question. Many groups have studied the question and report back that it involves families, teachers, schools, communities and fostering a culture that goes beyond zero tolerance, to use a phrase from the Fondation Jasmin Roy, to 100% intervention. Many of the efforts in this regard involve items of provincial jurisdiction, such as education or realms the law does not touch easily, such as what our children see on television or even what they observe in their own homes.

That said, there exists a plethora of groups and initiatives in communities across the country that the government should continue to support. Moreover, Ottawa must collaborate with the provinces to ensure that each level of government is supported by the other to ensure maximum efficiency and that redundant efforts are not made. In short, we need a comprehensive and collaborative national bullying strategy. This is something on which we can all agree.

Unfortunately, today, we are not debating a strategy or a bill. Instead, we are debating a motion to create a special committee that will study the issue for 12 months and then write a report.

This is the main issue: if we adopt this motion, we will study the problem for 12 months, and we will create a report that will require nothing from anyone and might not lead to any bill and any additional funding to community organizations. We will only have a nice report with black ink on white pages that the government will be able to ignore as soon as it comes off the press. How will this contribute to improving life for our young people? That's what we call putting off things.

While I emphasize the need for a national bullying strategy, I am concerned about a process that gives the Conservatives a blank cheque to say what they feel is appropriate and will only result in a report to be issued in a year from now, which could easily be ignored.

Moreover, the motion itself does not define the scope of bullying to be studied by the committee, such that committee meetings on this could look at union busting, political intimidation and other types of intimidation that may not involve young people at all.

As I mentioned, various governments have looked at this question previously in response to a spate of teen suicides resulting from bullying. Numerous American states have changed their laws to address the epidemic of bullying, in particular, cyberbullying.

In that regard, my colleague, the member for Vancouver Centre, proposed legislation that passed in the House at second reading to ensure that cyberbullying would be caught by Canada's Criminal Code. I look forward to Bill C-273 coming back from the justice committee and being adopted by the House.

Such concrete actions are what the House should be studying and adopting rather than engaging in the exercise of study yet again. We have plenty of examples to turn to from around the world. In the U.K., for example, the education and inspections act gives headteachers the power to regulate the conduct of pupils when they are not on school premises and are not under the lawful control or charge of a member of school staff. This can relate to any bullying incidents occurring anywhere off school premises, such as on school or public transport, outside local shops or in a town centre, for example.

The U.S. state of Maryland has one of the most aggressive anti-bullying laws in the country, with students encouraged to fill out anonymous forms when incidents occur, protections for students who blow the whistle and reports of incidents published by schools are accessible to parents so they can monitor the school climate.

Simply put, there is no shortage of ideas out there for how to combat bullying and we all agree that this is a grave problem that must addressed urgently. In that regard, I do not fault the sponsor of this motion for wanting to help. We all want to help and do what we can. My biggest concern is that he proposes the committee trust the Conservative majority to come up with a solution.

As I noted at the outset, bullying is an epidemic in our country that all too often has tragic consequences. I applaud the parents, teachers and community groups seeking to make a stand and improve the lives of youth affected by bullying. I hope Parliament will also play its part for we must all work together to make the bullying of young people a thing of the past.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is such a timely motion in many ways because of the tragedy we saw with Amanda Todd, which everyone across this country knows about and is now a worldwide issue. I commend the member for bringing forward this motion.

While the Liberals will be voting in favour of it because it is a worthwhile motion, we think it does not go far enough. There is sufficient information out there with regard to bullying and all its forms. Studies have been done around the world and by the World Health Organization. We know that bullying has not only a physical toll but also a mental toll. We know that many people who are bullied get headaches, suffer from nervousness and anxiety, and can even get dizzy spells.

However, we also know that it can create depression in susceptible people and that it can create, in some instances, the ultimate tragic response of suicide. However, it is not only about suicide. There are people for whom bullying triggers a response of anger. We have seen people take a gun and go into a school and try to take out all the people who had bullied them or caused them such pain.

At the end of the day, bullying is not new. Bullying has been with us from the beginning of time. All of us understand it. All of us know about it. However, bullying used to be limited to school. It was some kid pushing, shoving or locking another student in a washroom and all of those kinds of things. It was mean girls who would call people names and treat them badly. Eventually, in the old days, the victims used to be able to grow up and leave school. They used to be able to go home to parents who could protect them and have a group of friends outside of school who could be there for them.

Bullying has changed. With the rise of electronic media, we know that bullying follows us everywhere. I remember speaking to a young woman before I brought in my private member's bill, Bill C-273, which seeks to put the issue of electronic and cyberbullying into the Criminal Code with other forms of criminal harassment, libel and spreading of false messages, et cetera. This young woman told me that she could not get away from the bullying. She said, “I go home and it is there. I turn on my email and it is there. I turn on my computer and it is there. I go away to spend holidays with my parents and family and it is there. It is everywhere”.

The new social media allow cyberbullying to reach around the world so that someone in Germany today knows what someone is saying about a person. The messages also reach through a person's lifetime and are there forever. It does not matter where we go or how old we are, somebody can Google something about us that happened when we were in grade 11 or when we were 12 or 13 years old. In fact, cyberbullying can prevent someone from getting a job. We know that happens. A boss looks a person up on Google and, lo and behold, there is something about him or her that is not even true. It is false messaging.

We know it can carry on even after death. It will always be there.

Cyberbullying has given a new aspect to bullying, not that any bullying is right. As my hon. colleague in the Conservative Party said, it is not a rite of passage. It is not something we can tut-tut and say that we know about that from when we were in school. It can have dire consequences, and it used to. Today, because of mass communications, we know of the many people who are hurt physically and mentally by bullying because it is out there for us to find. It is in the media. We can see it and hear it. It reaches beyond us. In the old days, even as long ago as when some of us were kids or before that, who knows how many people went quietly and committed suicide or hid away and became reclusive or had mental health problems as a result of bullying?

The motion is good in that it talks about a prevention strategy. However, it concerns me that there are no real concrete measures in this bill. It would ask us to study it and we have studied this many times before. Many of us can tell stories that are heartbreaking. We have heard some of them in the House today, so I will not repeat them.

However, there was a young woman named Donna who attended eighth grade at a parochial school in Montreal. She and her mother travelled to Toronto to visit her grandmother who was dying from cancer. When she returned to school, a cyberbully circulated a rumour alleging that she had gotten SARS. Her friends did not want to hang out with her. They all walked away from her. She was left desolate and alone. She did not know what to do. They would not even talk to her on the telephone. That happened in Welland, Ontario, where she lived.

I think we all know the story of the freshman in Osaka, Japan, who, when his gym period was over, got dressed in what he believed was the privacy of the gym. Indeed, he was an overweight boy and some bully set up a camera and took a picture of him. Within seconds, by the time he had changed and walked out of the room, his picture was around the world for everyone to see. He had become a laughingstock, not only of the school but of the community.

We know that cyberbullying, or any kind of bullying, does not really end. We like to pretend this is something that only happens in schools, but in fact we know that people can be shunned in the workplace. We know that people can be shunned in their communities, where their neighbours will not speak to them. We know that many people who are gay, young and old, are terrified of people finding out, whether in their workplaces or in their communities. We see the impact of bullying. It is physical. It is mental. As in the case of this young lady, Amanda Todd, this weekend, it can be tragic.

It would be a nice idea if instead of studying it, when we have already done that, we look at the kind of comprehensive national strategy that we always look at when we deal with something that can result in serious harm. Public awareness and education are parts of what we have to look at. We also have to look at prevention and prevention programs, which could take place in the school, home and community. We have to look at the programs we could have for young, and older, people who have been bullied and how we could help to protect them and create some harm reduction. Eventually, we have to look at the consequences. Some of those consequences may or may not be in the Criminal Code and should be in the Criminal Code.

The Criminal Code currently deals with issues such as name-calling, false messaging and criminal harassment, which is what we saw happening to this young woman. Her bullying was criminal harassment.

We know that if it happens on the radio or if it happens on TV or if it happens in the newspaper, there has to be disclosure. In fact, the Criminal Code even deals with it when it happens by telephone. If telephone messages are being spread, the telephone company has to, under the law, disclose where the phone calls came from. However, we do not have a single way to find out who is doing the bullying from cyberspace. There is an anonymity in cyberbullying that allows it to flourish. No one knows who these people are. They can feel free to say whatever they wish.

The sad thing is that when this young woman put her story out, people were saying, “Go ahead and kill yourself”.

I do not know what society we live in but it is not just enough to talk about a prevention strategy. Some provinces have legislation. Some provinces have programs. We need to work together, using federal and provincial jurisdictions, and look at schools, communities and the workplace. We need to recognize this for what it is: an extremely important, dangerous and tragic habit. I do not know what else to call it.

However, I do want to thank the member for bringing the motion forward. We will be voting to support it.

I do believe that we need to take this issue seriously. If someone had beaten this girl and left her in an alley or drowned her, as we know happened in the past to Reena Virk in Victoria, then everyone would be liable. However, because she committed suicide, people do not believe anyone is liable.

I think it is time we put an end to this.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to the motion that is before the House. I commend my hon. colleague, the member from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, for caring about this issue and bringing it forward today for discussion.

The issue of bullying should always be a non-partisan issue. It is too easy for us as politicians to take certain topics and use them as ways to attack each other. However, I can sense very strongly from my hon. colleague that is not his intent with this motion. It is to truly find ways to resolve and find solutions to the very real and very heartbreaking issue of bullying. For that, I recognize, acknowledge and commend him.

I will talk frankly for a moment about what bullying is, what it is not and the devastating effects and consequences it has, first and foremost, for the victims but also for their families, friends, school teachers and classmates.

Bullying is harassment. It is assault. It is threats as well as intimidation. It is violent and harmful. Bullying is always wrong and should never be tolerated. It is not merely childish behaviour. It is not boys being boys. It is not mean girls. It is not a rite of passage. Terms like these are attempts to lessen the severity and numb us to the impacts of bullying. Put simply, bullying should never be tolerated by any adult, teacher or parent, especially when it comes to our children.

Whether in classrooms, on the playground, during sporting or extracurricular activities, in our community centres or in our homes through social media, such as Facebook and Twitter, our children should always be protected from bullying and they should always know that there is someone who they can turn to for help.

Sadly, this past week we have seen yet another example of a young person who has taken her life believing that she had no way out of the torment of being bullied. All of us, whether as parents, educators or concerned citizens, share in the sadness and grief that Amanda Todd's family must be going through. We all ask ourselves how something like this could have happened and how we can stop it from ever happening again. All of us need to ask ourselves as adults and individuals if we are doing all that we can to stop bullying at its roots and to show by example that we truly believe that it needs to end.

It is also important to talk about what the government can do and where it can lead and show support. Therefore, I want to take a moment to talk about what our government is doing to help stop bullying.

Our belief is that this problem is best dealt with at the most local level, by the people who are in the core and closest to it, those who are in our schools, communities, health, education and law-enforcement professionals.

Communities and schools at the local level are in the best position to identify the risk factors in their local community. As well, they are in the best position to identify what their vulnerable children and teens have to deal with and what the solutions are, again at the local level. That is where our support is focused and where we believe funding can do the most good.

I will provide the House with some concrete examples of what our government is doing.

First, we are taking action to address bullying through the Public Health Agency of Canada, which, in conjunction with Health Canada, invests in a number of initiatives to help promote awareness and advanced action to address bullying. The Healthy Canadian website provides information on bullying and tips for bullying prevention and intervention. The WITS program, which stands for walk away, ignore, talk it out and seek help, teaches children in kindergarten to grade six to make safe and positive choices when faced with bullying, cyberbullying, peer victimization and conflict.

As well, the RCMP is very active in outreach and information dissemination on bullying related issues. For example, the force operates a website built by youth for youth called DEAL.org, which is a web-based program that offers resources to youth, parents and educators on issues such as bullying and cyberbullying.

Another way that our government is working to address bullying is through the national crime prevention strategy. Through the strategy, Public Safety Canada provides funding to organizations, including schools, to implement crime prevention projects and initiatives targeted to helping children, youth and young adults at risk.

I want to highlight that the prevention of bullying and violence in schools was recently included as a priority under the strategy in the current call for project proposals. It is concrete action such as this that demonstrates that our government is determined to work with our partners to continue developing new and innovative ways to address bullying.

We are moving forward through the concerted efforts of these organizations federally, as well as with our provincial and territorial partners. We are consulting with the provinces and territories as they develop and implement new initiatives in schools and classroom settings. We are unified in our efforts to stop bullying.

The motion before us suggests that we should establish a special parliamentary committee to examine various aspects of bullying and develop a national prevention strategy. Members will know that the other place adopted a motion last November authorizing the Senate Committee on Human Rights to examine and report on the issue of cyberbullying in Canada with specific regard to Canada's obligations under Article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The committee plans to present its findings this fall and will also produce targeted publications for distribution to children, parents and teachers.

As well, the House is currently considering private member's Bill C-273, which seeks to address the issue of cyberbullying by amending three of several existing Criminal Code offences that can apply to bullying.

Yesterday,Ottawa city councillor, Allan Hubley, who sadly knows first-hand the impact of bullying, had this to say:

There is a time for action now instead of another study or anything like that.

I agree that it is time for action.

This Parliament currently has not one but two committees looking into the issue of bullying. What we would like to see is more information on how the committee that would be created by today's motion would interact with the work that is already under way.

All Canadians can be assured that we as a government and all hon. members are taking concrete action to prevent and reduce bullying. Bullying is not a part of growing up. It is not a rite of passage and it should not be treated as such.

We look forward to examining the recommendations from the two parliamentary committees already studying this issue. We also look forward to being further informed on the proposed committee and how it would interact with the recommendations and the conclusions of the committees under way.

Justice

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, bullying is unacceptable and should not be tolerated. In our view, Bill C-273 raises criminal law policy concerns which may end up creating more problems than solutions.

The courts have already interpreted criminal harassment in a provision of the Criminal Code to apply to behaviour committed via the Internet. The Senate is currently looking at the issue of cyberbullying, and we look forward to receiving its report. We should let the Senate continue its important work.

Criminal Code

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the deferred recorded division of the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-273.

The House resumed from June 5 consideration of the motion that Bill C-273, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cyberbullying), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support the bill and to congratulate the member for Vancouver Centre for bringing it forward. This issue is important to her, and I share her concerns.

Bill C-273, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cyberbullying), has been brought forward to really slightly redefine criminal harassment, defamatory libel and legislation pertaining to false messages. It is a good bill and one that we should support.

This issue is especially pertinent in my riding of Burnaby—Douglas. Last year we had quite a local controversy. It was about bullying in general, but also cyberbullying. We had a number of charges of cyberbullying within our local school system toward LGBT community members in our riding. That launched a purple letter campaign by local constituent Kaitlin Burnett, which really took off. It was an effort to get all members of the community to act against bullying.

To show that this kind of bullying is real, during the municipal election we had a small political party slate form that was against this purple letter campaign and against changing any laws that would reduce bullying toward the LGBT community. Heated debates were held all the way through the municipal election campaign about this issue . I strongly support the purple letter campaign and this bill to strengthen measures against cyberbullying, because it is very real.

Most Canadians also believe in this. I have here some polling from Angus Reid showing that a vast majority of Canadians agree that bullying now extends beyond face-to-face or even written bullying to the Internet as well. This is a very real issue. It is real for Canadians and it is real for my constituents.

I hope members on the other side of the House will join with us and support this important private member's bill.

[Anne Minh-Thu Quach, NDP, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Mr. Speaker, with the growing popularity of social media comes the growing problem of cyberbullying. Those who have been bullied on the Internet can attest to the anger, shame and powerlessness they feel when personal information or a photo taken without their knowledge is posted online.

In 2002, Ghyslain Raza, a young boy from Trois-Rivières, saw a video of himself posted on YouTube without his consent. That video was viewed by millions of people around the world. The young boy, who was 14 at the time, suffered a deep depression and had to be hospitalized.

Bullying, defamation and harassment should not be tolerated because they can cause serious harm and irreparable damage. Using email or social media to commit these acts does not make them acceptable either.

What is the definition of cyberbullying? Education expert Bill Belsey describes it like this:

Cyberbullying is the use of information and communication technologies, such as email, cellphone, pager text messages, instant messaging, defamatory personal websites and defamatory online personal polling websites, to support deliberate, repeated and hostile behaviour by an individual or group, that is intended to harm others.

Cyberbullying therefore includes all of the elements involved in the usual forms of bullying, but transposes them to an online and highly public environment.

On social networking sites like Piczo, Facebook and MySpace, bullies often focus on chat rooms because they are very popular. Messages, photographs and videos can have a devastating impact on victims because they are seen by thousands or even millions of people and because the bullying can go viral.

According to a Statistics Canada survey, approximately 7% of adult Internet users are bullied over the Internet. The risk is higher for some people, including young adults, where the rate is 17%. It is also likely that young people who are already experiencing integration problems or being harassed at school are more likely to be cyberbullying targets. People perceived as different are also targeted: homosexuals, people with a physical or mental disability and immigrants, for example.

In 2009, University of Toronto professors Faye Mishna and Robert MacFadden carried out a study of more than 2,000 students in the greater Toronto area. The results were alarming. Over 21% of students—one in five—said that they had been victims of cyberbullying.

The Montreal police force also conducted a survey of young people, which indicated that 27% of young people aged 9 to 17 say they have been victims of bullying or harassment on the Internet.

Kids Help Phone also conducted a survey of young people in 2007. The responses are heartbreaking. The young people said that the bullying often involves students who already know each other. For example, one young person confided:

I was playing Habbo Hotel [an online game] and the person (since I'm black) made fun of my race. They called me bad words and names.…

Most of the time the people bullying me online were the same people that were bullying me in real life, but used technology to escalate it and make the pictures/rumours spread faster and farther.

So it is important not to underestimate the psychological impact that cyberbullying can have on young people.

Another girl confided:

About six months ago my friend or my so-called friend had a hate page on her website and I was on it there were many names that just weren't necessary to say. I felt like she betrayed me I felt angry I couldn't help it, then people started making fun of me at school and I had no self-confidence so I started to hurt myself and everyone found out then I was just so scared of what they were going to do to me that I almost committed suicide.

As a teacher, I saw students faced with cyberbullying problems a number of times, and I can attest that the effects are devastating and that young people feel completely lost and destitute.

The bill introduced by the member for Vancouver South aims to amend three sections of the Criminal Code in order to include cyberbullying. In fact, it is proposing amendments to sections 264, 298 and 372 of the Criminal Code. They deal with criminal harassment, defamatory libel and false messages, respectively.

Amendments to section 264 of the Criminal Code would mean that repeated communication using a computer or similar device, or a threatening attitude causing a person to be concerned for his safety, would be considered harassment. The amendment to the other two sections serves the same purpose: to broaden the scope of the code to include the use of a computer in the commission of a crime.

The spirit of this bill is worthy. It aims to eliminate any grey areas or ambiguity in the law to ensure that cyberbullying, when a crime is involved, is penalized.

We obviously agree with the spirit of the bill. We do, however, have misgivings about the implementation of this legislation when it comes to young people. We are afraid that the bill will lead to the criminalization of behaviour among young people that could be modified through education and awareness building, in other words, through more prevention.

The many studies conducted by Professor Belsey, the founder of bullying.org, led him to the conclusion that bullying is a behaviour that can be influenced and therefore changed. He observed that the best way of addressing such behaviour is through education and awareness building. When consulted about Bill C–273, Professor Belsey said the following: “Bullying is a behaviour and is therefore very fluid. Should a child be threatened with expulsion every time he behaves in this way? If that were the approach, there would be no children left at school. Since bullying is an acquired behaviour, it also means that with a little bit of help and support, these behaviours can be changed.”

When it comes to education and awareness building, Canada could draw inspiration from a Finnish program called KiVa, considered one of the best in the world. The objective is to influence “witnesses” of acts of bullying and encourage them to intervene. Instead of expelling the culprits, a dialogue takes place between the bully, his victim and other student witnesses. The program has really helped to rekindle young people’s interest in school and to make students more motivated and successful. After just one year, victimization and harassment had dropped markedly, and KiVa won the European award for crime prevention.

Here, too, prevention programs are beginning to appear. The RCMP and the Canadian Teachers’ Federation have joined forces to design presentations that target students from grades 4 to 12. They are teaching youth how to recognize, respond to and prevent this behaviour.

In Quebec, several police services have joined forces to create “Vous NET pas seul”, a program to prevent cyberbullying. The program's objectives include inviting young people and their parents to be vigilant when surfing the Internet. There are two components—one for teenagers, which aims to inform them of the dangers of careless surfing, and one for parents, which demystifies the Internet and gives advice on safety and monitoring.

Sites like WebAware explain the various forms of cyberbullying and its legal consequences and provide young people and parents with tips on how to protect themselves.

The Sûreté du Québec is working with several school boards to increase awareness about the problem among youth. In my riding of Beauharnois—Salaberry, Isabelle Pépin, a school psychologist, is intervening in this area at Edgar-Hébert secondary school. In order to be successful when it comes to this issue, she believes that everyone needs to get involved: governments, parents, teachers, students and the general public—basically society as a whole. We must say no to all forms of bullying and cyberbullying in particular.

Perhaps the computer gives us a degree of anonymity that prevents the development of a feeling of empathy towards the victims because there are no direct links between the bully, the victims and the witnesses. But we must remember that real people are hiding behind the aliases.

I hope that this bill will help to make people aware of the dangers of cyberbullying. But my colleagues and I believe that amendments could be considered when the bill is studied in committee. Young people should not be put in prison. They and their parents should be made aware of the problem. By giving ourselves proper tools, we can change behaviour and prevent cyberbullying.

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak at second reading debate on Bill C-273, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cyberbullying).

I would like to thank the member for Vancouver Centre for introducing Bill C-273 and for giving us the opportunity to discuss this very current issue of cyberbullying.

The issue of bullying and cyberbullying is an important issue for Parliament to discuss. I can say with certainty that those of us on this side of the House stand with those who have been bullied. We are concerned with the issue of bullying and cyberbullying. In fact, as I am sure members are aware, the issue is currently being studied by the Senate committee on human rights.

Despite my concerns relating to the issue of bullying and cyberbullying, I will not be voting in support of Bill C-273 as I think that criminal legislative reform, if indeed any is needed, should await the outcome of the Senate committee review. Further, should the Senate committee recommend criminal law reform, reforms may well be very different from those proposed in Bill C-273. This is, of course, why we are having the Senate review. It is incumbent upon us to get the best advice possible before we proceed with any legislative changes.

I would like to add that my opposition to Bill C-273 should not be interpreted to mean that the government is not interested in the issue of bullying or cyberbullying. It is. The government takes the protection of Canada's youth very seriously, and has been very active over the past few years in areas related to bullying. I am going to speak to a few of those.

Specifically, the National Crime Prevention Centre and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police run a number of programs that target youth who are at risk for bullying-type behaviour. The NCPC has funded approximately 30 projects since 2007, which have addressed primarily youth violence and bullying. Additionally, the NCPC has developed resources for the Canadian public on evidence-based interventions to effectively address bullying.

The RCMP run seven outreach initiatives and program activities which address the issue of cyberbullying. One such example is deal.org, a for youth, by youth web initiative to inform youth about youth crime and victimization. The website also contains a cyberbullying fact sheet, an online interactive cyberbullying game and various blog posts on the topic of cyberbullying.

The RCMP also partners with several national organizations with respect to bullying and cyberbullying. In December 2011, in collaboration with PREVNet and researchers at the University of Victoria, the RCMP began piloting the WITS programs for the prevention of peer victimization and bullying, including cyberbullying. WITS stands for walk away, ignore, talk it out and seek help.

Through this partnership, RCMP members have already engaged in many schools and with children in the program's activities. The provinces and territories are also very active in developing and implementing anti-bullying initiatives. Many have also introduced amendments to their education or schools acts in an attempt to more effectively manage what appears to be a growing challenge. Bullying behaviour, as a social phenomenon, has been around for a very long time. The previous speaker mentioned that any of us who have been in school or who have kids in school are familiar with issues of bullying. We have all witnessed this taking place.

It is the relatively new phenomena, though, of cyberbullying that has grabbed the attention of the public, the media and now, today, our Parliament. Over the past number of years we increasingly heard more about it, and this is primarily because of the social media, such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube. According to the Nielsen Company in the United States, 22% of the average Internet user's time on line is spent on social media. In fact, a 2008 Reuters news article reported that social media is the top online activity. It is clear that social media is a popular way of connecting people, but it also has its risks.

To this end, the Senate Standing Committee on Human Rights has been conducting a study on the issue of cyberbullying, in part to address Canada's international human rights obligation under article 19 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is to protect children from all forms of neglect, abuse and exploitation.

The committee hearings are ongoing, and it has heard from a number of child advocacy stakeholders, as well as persons who have been affected by cyberbullying. The committee must table this important report no later than October 31, 2012. I believe it would be wise for Parliament to await this report before undertaking any criminal law reform in this area.

With regard to this bill specifically, there are two concerns that relate to the amendments proposed to the criminal harassment and defamatory libel provisions. One, the amendments are not needed, as courts have already interpreted these two provisions as applying to behaviour committed via the Internet. Two, these amendments to only some of the applicable offences may lead to interpretation difficulties with respect to other unnamed Criminal Code offences.

I will delve into this second issue a little further. The Criminal Code already possesses a number of offences that are applicable to bullying behaviour, including those amended by the bill, but others as well, such as intimidation, section 423; uttering threats, section 264.1; and robbery, section 343, among others.

As mentioned, Bill C-273 only proposes to clarify that criminal harassment and defamation can be committed using a computer. Not clarifying that the other offences can also be committed using a computer may lead to those other offences being interpreted to only apply to behaviour that is not committed using a computer. In other words, by mentioning via computer in one section, this could signal to the courts that Parliament's intent is to exclude behaviour committed via computer from other offences.

In closing, I would like to take another opportunity to thank the hon. member for Vancouver Centre for raising this important issue of cyberbullying. It is an issue that I believe deserves Parliament's attention. However, we should also consider the issue when we have the benefit of the report from the Senate committee that is currently vested with this review.

I know that, while all of us in this House oppose bullying and oppose cyberbullying, this is not a motion; this is a bill, and a bill has a consequence in law. It is our responsibility, as legislators, to make sure that, when we pass a bill into law, it has the effect we want it to have. Unfortunately, this bill would not be Parliament's best effort.

We should await the Senate committee review and take the advice that comes from that review. We know it is actively hearing from witnesses. We know some of those witnesses include people who have been cyberbullied. We look forward to the report.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join this evening's debate. I enjoyed my hon. colleague's speech. I know that there were other speeches made the last time the bill was debated in this House. All members in this House agree that it is important to combat cyberbullying.

I would also like to thank my hon. colleague from Vancouver Centre for introducing this bill in the House. This is an important issue in every region of the country.

It is somewhat ironic that we are speaking about cyberbullying legislation on the day that the Ontario legislature passed Bill C-13, the provincial government's anti-bullying legislation. Of course, there are fundamental differences between these two pieces of legislation. Bill C-273 is certainly not as controversial as the Ontario bill seems to be, but it is an extremely important piece of legislation on an extremely important issue. Bill C-273 would clarify the existing law in the Criminal Code as it applies to cyberbullying by amending the code.

This issue affects many families in Nova Scotia, as well as in other provinces and territories. There are way too many examples of it. Who of us has not experienced or witnessed bullying when we were in school ourselves? When I was in school, we certainly did not have the added concern of being exposed to bullying on the Internet with people talking anonymously about us and posting disturbing pictures. There are many things that happen today.

I heard from a parent in my riding whose daughter has been bullied since last October. The incidents started in school, there were incidents in class that were addressed by the school, but then they continued in the hallway. Kids would giggle as she walked by and so forth. The impact on this child, of what may seem to us as not that serious as adults, was truly tragic.

For instance, she does not want to go to school now. She refuses to go, if members can imagine. She is obviously very unhappy. She is at home and angry about the situation she is in. This is a case where bullying has affected the entire family. Her parent feels the pain of not being able to help or protect her daughter and her siblings have to deal with her behaviour.

It is clear that teenagers, at the most difficult time in life in many ways, find this kind of abuse difficult if not impossible to ignore and very hard to cope with. Since we have all been teenagers, I think we all have a pretty good idea of what that sort of thing feels like and what a difficult and emotional time it can be.

Despite the impact it was having on her at the time, the daughter did not tell anyone. She did not want to tell anyone that she was being bullied because she did not think that there was anything that could be done about it. She was afraid that telling would make it worse. She perceived that she would be with those kids for the rest of the year, spending a lot of time around the children who were bullying her, and the fact that they would have been told to stop or punished in some way would not have had any long-term effect in helping her.

We have had other examples of this in Nova Scotia, unfortunately, and some have been well publicized.

There was a young woman named Jenna Bowers-Bryanton of Nova Scotia who took her own life on January 17 of last year after being harassed at school and through a social networking site.

In recent weeks, if members can imagine, a person on Facebook has purported to be a leader of a group called Libya Torial, whatever that is supposed to be, that allegedly drove three Nova Scotia girls to kill themselves. It is hard to imagine that anyone would want to claim credit for that, to say that they are the group that bullied these poor kids to the point where things were so awful for them that they wanted to kill themselves.

All of us, whether as parents, parliamentarians or individuals of society kind of want to say to a young person, especially a teenager who is going through that kind of difficult time, “No matter how hard it gets, you can handle it, and no matter had bad it gets, it will get better”. Those are two very important messages that we have to give to young people. However, they are not the answer. That is not how we address the problem. It is just one small step to try to support the person who is going through this kind of difficulty.

Another person from Nova Scotia who was targeted was Courtney Brown, who very sadly committed suicide. In Ontario, in June of last year, there was a 16-year-old girl who was violently attacked at school by two other girls while another student videotaped the attack and later posted it on YouTube. That is just awful.

Bullying is why a young fellow, Travis Price of Nova Scotia, founded the Pink Shirt Day, after a fellow student was bullied for wearing a pink shirt to school. Thank goodness that does not happen to us here because lots of us like to wear pink shirts. They look good. Interestingly, I heard a presentation from a folklorist in Nova Scotia, Clary Croft, who is an expert in costume and clothing over the centuries. He talked about how a hundred years or so ago when pink first came into public awareness, it was a man's colour and blue was considered a woman's colour. My colleague from Winnipeg North says it still is.

Travis was so concerned about seeing the bullying, he started Pink Shirt Day, this movement across the country where one day each year kids in schools wear pink shirts to say they are against bullying.

It is important that all of us as adults, and everyone in society, say that bullying is wrong. We need to send a message to people who are perpetrators, whether in a moment of dislike, on the Internet when they are anonymous at home and are able to put something up very quickly, or whether it is more deliberate. We want to say to people that this is wrong and they should think about what they are doing and the pain they are causing.

One of the things about the Internet is that so often the perpetrator does not see the impact of what is happening. We know one of the values, for instance, of healing circles, which the aboriginals in our country have used for so long, is that the person who has committed some harmful act is forced to confront the person who has been harmed by it and to consider the impact. That is why restorative justice has been very valuable.

The problem here is that sometimes it is impossible to identify the perpetrator because there are websites where they can post things anonymously. With YouTube they can use a false name, or they can impersonate someone. In fact, they can impersonate the person they are bullying. That is a form of bullying.

This is not easy, but it is very important that governments do what they can to address this, that we enable police to get access to information about who is doing what. I am not endorsing what we have heard before from the Minister of Public Safety, but I think we all recognize that there is a need to take measures to try to stop this kind of thing.

We have a case in Nova Scotia where a young person was bullied, on Facebook I believe it was. That person is going to ask the court that his or her name remain confidential when the bully is sued. I know the media does not like that. Some members of the media have actually opposed this request. I understand their reasoning. However, in a case like this when we consider the harm of cyberbullying, it is important to protect that person as much as possible and not compound it. How else are they going to have an answer to this?

Mr. Speaker, I see you rising, which tells me I am at the end of my time. However, I want to congratulate my colleague for Vancouver Centre for bringing forward this bill on this important issue. I look forward to supporting it.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise again today to speak to Bill C-273, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cyberbullying). In the little time I have left today, I will focus primarily on good examples of action taken by the community in my riding of Drummond to fight bullying and cyberbullying.

In my riding, the Sûreté du Québec is very committed to the fight against violence and bullying. Officer Daniel Jutras visits schools and gives presentations to raise awareness. Mr. Jutras does an excellent job. He has made several presentations this year, at schools in Saint-Cyrille-de-Wendover and Saint-Germain-de-Grantham among others, as a result of the hard work of parent and citizens' committees.

In Saint-Germain-de-Grantham, the Groupe de soutien d'aide aux victimes d'intimidation, a parent-run committee in the town, organized an evening presentation on bullying. It was a great success: many people attended, and young and old alike showed keen interest.

Bullying affects society as a whole. It is very important to adopt a preventive—rather than a legislative and punitive—approach to bullying. Our work must really focus on prevention. There are a lot of people doing just that in my riding. For example, there is a parents' committee of the Des Chênes school board that had as its guest Jasmin Roy, the founder of the Jasmin Roy Foundation, and an anti-bulling advocate. He came to Drummondville and gave an excellent presentation. Once again, both young and old were interested in his presentation. Everybody had questions or comments on the issue. As a society, this issue concerns us all.

I think that it is important that all levels of government get involved in the fight against bullying and cyberbullying. Not only is it a hot button issue, it is an age-old societal problem that must be addressed, so that we can live in a better society.

If time permits, I would also like to say that it is important to understand bullying in order to address it. Human beings need to learn to live together with all their differences; the great riches of humanity are to be found in its plurality and diversity. I think that this fits in well with our goal of combatting bullying and cyberbullying through prevention. That is the first step, and everybody needs to get on board.

The House resumed from April 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C-273, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cyberbullying), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say first of all that I am speaking today on Bill C-273, an act to amend the Criminal Code on cyberbullying.

I am greatly concerned about cyberbullying and bullying. I really want to make people aware of this terrible scourge. As a former teacher, and as a father, this is an issue that is of immediate concern to me. We know it is a very serious social problem with tragic consequences and implications.

In my community, in the Drummond riding, people are very involved and are aware of the issue. They are taking action to inform and enlighten people about this serious problem. The parents' committee of the Des Chênes school board, which I am proud to recognize and commend, is a very active committee. Recently, these parents sent out an invitation to Jasmin Roy, who established the Fondation Jasmin Roy that fights against bullying and cyberbullying.

Mr. Roy gave a speech in Drummondville, and the room was full to overflowing. Everyone listened closely. Parents and young people, people who had never been bullied and others who had been bullied or were still being bullied, everyone was very concerned about the issue. At the end of the speech, I had planned to ask a question because I found the subject extremely interesting and worrying. When I raised my hand, I saw that all those in attendance had raised their hand at the same time. I was really astounded to see that the issue was of such great concern and that it touched so many people. It touched them personally, in the deepest part of themselves, and it touched their dignity.

This is really important, because when you bully someone, you attack their dignity, their self-esteem and their idea of themselves as individuals. It is very important to be treated with respect, and bullying and cyberbullying damage people's self-esteem. As we know, unfortunately, sometimes this has very serious consequences. It can lead to suicide. There is a great deal of depression. Mr. Roy himself explained that he had experienced periods of very serious depression because of the bullying he had suffered. We have to take action on this problem, and it is important that all levels of government be involved.

People in my municipality are very involved, including the parents' committee and the municipality itself. As an MP and a citizen myself, I decided to get involved too. In fact, I have offered my website to people to post messages of hope—youth and adults alike, anyone who has been bullied in the past or has witnessed this phenomenon and did not know what to do about it. Once again, I am offering my website to people who want to post messages of hope, to encourage people to condemn bullying and to call on organizations that can help.

It is imperative that we not sit back and do nothing about bullying. People need to get involved and condemn it. They need to go and get help, to tell their parents and teachers. Organizations exist. Tel-jeunes is a great organization that is making a difference in Quebec. It is absolutely crucial that people be able to intervene.

Once again, I would like to thank the entire Drummondville community for its great work.

We live in a time when communication is at a peak. This allows people to share information very quickly and across borders. Today's technology—whether telephones, cell phones or computers—is capable of doing more and more. Accessing the Internet is child's play for most people, and this allows us to stay in touch no matter where we are.

The Internet is creating an entire universe of new forms of interaction.

The use of email, websites, discussion forums, instant messages, text messages and social networks allows many very interesting messages to be shared; however, unfortunately, it also allows for an incredible form of abuse that we call cyberbullying. There are too many examples of people who have made headlines in the newspapers, the media and the national and international news because they got caught in the vicious cycle of cyberbullying and bullying. They committed deplorable acts that one can only be saddened to learn about. As I mentioned earlier, unfortunately, some people go as far as committing suicide. We must put a stop to this scourge. All levels of government must get involved.

Since I have little time remaining, I will get right to the heart of my conclusion. What I think is important is that this bill is a beginning. It is not perfect but it must be supported in some way. We need to ensure that the main focus is prevention, because once such acts have been committed, the damage is done and the results are too sad. We really have to focus on creating greater harmony in schools and with people. We have to work on self-esteem.

When a person has high self-esteem, when he feels good about himself and he is involved in worthwhile activities, such as sports, hobbies and the arts, he has alternatives to bullying others. Such involvement also helps to create social ties and to ensure that victims of bullying have someone to talk to and to provide them with support in order to help them cope with this very real problem. Everyone needs to get involved.

Unfortunately, the Conservative government is not very involved. There are many things that can be done. The hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord named a number of them earlier.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to discuss this legislation introduced by the member for Vancouver Centre that proposes to strengthen our ability to deal with cyberbullying.

Bill C-273 seeks to amend three Criminal Code offences: section 264, criminal harassment; section 298, defamatory libel; and section 372, false messages, indecent telephone calls and harassing telephone calls, to ensure that all three of these offences are interpreted to capture behaviour that occurs using a computer or over the Internet. The sponsor's stated goal with these proposed amendments is to target the growing issue of cyberbullying, a term that has received a lot of media and academic attention and scrutiny.

I am sure we can all acknowledge that the issue of bullying is not new. However, technology has forever changed the nature and scope of bullying, as it has changed so many other aspects of our society. The immediacy and broad reach of new technologies has made bullying easier, faster, anonymous, more prevalent, permanent and more cruel than ever before.

The member for Vancouver Centre is in good company in recognizing the increasing challenge posed by computer technology to the issue of bullying. In fact, many leading Canadian scholars and academics have been involved in work to ascertain to what extent bullying and cyberbullying is occurring in Canadian schools and on playgrounds. It is challenging to get an accurate sense of the level of bullying in Canada but many people are trying, and I think it is fair to say that the incidents of bullying are not insignificant.

For example, in her remarks upon the introduction of the bill, the member for Vancouver Centre referred to a University of Toronto survey on cyberbullying. She stated:

In a recent study by the University of Toronto, 50% of surveyed students reported that they had been bullied online....

Other reports make the same point. For example, a 2010 research report published in the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, which studied 33 junior high schools in Toronto, reported that almost 50% of students surveyed had been bullied online.

It is not just students who are affected by this issue. Many educators, non-governmental organizations and parents have reported that cyberbullying is one of their biggest concerns relating to schools and education today. A Statistics Canada survey conducted in 2007 of 2,162 Canadian parents with children age 5 to 24 years found that bullying was a concern to 80% of parents.

Another survey conducted in 2010 on behalf of the Canadian Teachers Federation found that 85% of Canadians felt that bullying and violence were very serious problems.

Finally, an Angus Reid poll from this year found that 88% of Canadians surveyed felt that bullying was a serious problem in elementary school and 94% felt that it was a problem in high school and middle school.

We all recognize that these are very serious issues and the government has been active in addressing the issue of bullying through several federal departments. For example, bullying is being addressed by the national crime prevention strategy, which is administered by Public Safety Canada's National Crime Prevention Centre. The National Crime Prevention Centre provides funding to organizations, including schools, to implement crime prevention. The interventions target the risk factors that are associated with future involvement in crime, including aggressive and anti-social behaviour, which are also linked to involvement in bullying.

The federal government also offers programming and project funding to help address and prevent bullying through the RCMP, the Public Health Agency of Canada and Justice Canada.

Provincial governments are also dealing with the issue through various measures. For example, Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and Alberta have all recently introduced new anti-bullying legislation that requires schools to implement anti-bullying policies and procedures. Ontario's keeping our kids safe in school act, which came into force in February 2010, requires, among other things, all school staff to report to principals serious student incidents, including bullying.

Quebec's bill 56, as another example, will require schools to implement an anti-bullying plan and allow principals to expel repeat offenders when it is passed by the provincial legislature.

Earlier this month, Nova Scotia announced that it would be introducing legislation in the near future to address the issue of bullying. It will likely take into account the 85 recommendations contained in the recently released task force report on bullying and cyberbullying. The task force, which was struck by the Government of Nova Scotia in 2011, released its report on March 22 of this year.

In addition to federal and provincial efforts to address bullying and cyberbullying, some municipalities have enacted bylaws against bullying. Edmonton, Alberta was the first municipality to do so in 2003. It currently has a bylaw in force that would impose a fine of up to $250 on anyone who bullies a person under the age of 18.

It is also interesting to note that other jurisdictions, including the United States, have also been addressing the issue of bullying and cyberbullying through legislative reforms. To date, 50 U.S. states have enacted legislation that address bullying or cyberbullying in some way and a few of them flow through the imposition of criminal sanctions.

As members can see, there is much work under way to address the issue of bullying. It is an issue that I take very seriously as it has affected my own family.

I would just like to raise for our consideration a few points regarding the approach this bill is proposing. I would ask members to think about the scope of the bill and the fact that it only addresses the issue of cyberbullying and not the broader issue of bullying. In my opinion, these two types of bullying are so closely intertwined that it may well make more sense to deal with both together. As well, it limits the focus to three Criminal Code offences and not to other offences that could also apply in a situation of bullying, such as intimidation, personation and uttering threats. We should consider whether the narrower approach is the right approach.

I do not want these comments to detract from the importance of this issue so, in closing, I express my thanks to the member for Vancouver Centre for bringing this very important issue before us today.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-273, an act to amend the Criminal Code in relation to cyberbullying.

As my colleagues have noted in the debate thus far, Bill C-273 would amend the Criminal Code to broaden the scope of crimes constituting criminal harassment, defamatory libel and false messaging. My colleague, the member for Vancouver Centre, has explained the definitions with respect to each of these crimes. The current law provides, for example, that an individual is libel for false messaging if he or she deliberately spreads false information through the mediums of letter, telegram, telephone, cable, radio and the like. However, there is no provision that prohibits false messaging through the newest and most widely used medium, the Internet.

Before I proceed any further, I want to commend the hard work of my colleague, the member for Vancouver Centre, and her remarkable foresight in bringing this matter to public attention years ago and for her ongoing dedication to rectifying what is certainly a vital issue in our increasingly technologically-oriented Internet society.

With the proliferation of potential uses and abuses of the Internet, the crime of Internet harassment presents challenges for law enforcement personnel, legislators, educators, parents and the like. Indeed, given its immediacy, anonymity and accessibility, the Internet offers a forum, through social networking sites and the like, for harassment and other social ills committed against minors.

Accordingly, Bill C-273 is an important step in the right direction as the current legislation does not adequately protect Canadians and, in particular, young persons from such online abuse.

In 2009, Professors Faye Mishna and Robert MacFadden from the University of Toronto undertook a survey of roughly 2,200 students from 33 schools in the greater Toronto area in order to gauge the effects of cyberbullying. The results were alarming. They determined that over 50% of the students had been bullied online and that the bulk of cyberbullying occurred between students who attended the same school and knew each other in person. More important, the results revealed that individuals who would tend not to bully others face to face would be far more likely to engage in bullying over the Internet.

Professor Qing Li from the University of Calgary found that, as a result of the impersonal nature of the Internet, whereby we do not experience the same feelings of regret or shame that come hand-in-hand with personal interaction, not only are more people likely to engage in cyberbullying, but those who do so feel that they can say whatever they want without any fear of repercussion or sanction. Simply put, the ability to cloak oneself in the shadows of cyberspace removes barriers, decreases the likelihood of punishment and, thus, results in more bullying and more victims.

In a word, the veil of separation, distance and anonymity that the Internet provides has amplified the problem of bullying simply by expanding the arena of threat far wider than the public sphere to which it was once confined. Indeed, children who are victims of cyberbullying can no longer even seek refuge in the comfort of their own homes.

Addressing cyberbullying is an issue of the utmost importance, as has been set forth in the comments this evening. Protecting our youth is one of the most vital responsibilities that not only we as parliamentarians but society as a whole share: protecting, in effect, the most vulnerable among us. When I was minister of justice, the first piece of legislation that I tabled before the House at the time was a bill to protect children and other vulnerable persons. The bill then sought, as we do now, to provide protection for those who are the victims of such hateful and harmful crime.

Unfortunately, it is not always the case that legislation, criminal law in particular, is able to keep pace with the technological developments in our society. As I have said elsewhere, while science races, the law lags and very often the scientists beat the lawyers. The lack of comprehensive legislation in this regard, coupled with the lack of consequences for online bullies, only further enables cyberbullying by incentivizing online abuse as an alternative to physical bullying.

In 2009, Statistics Canada reported that eight out of ten Canadian households owned a computer and had access to the Internet and that the number of Canadian Internet users was increasing.

A recent study by comScore found that Canada continues to lead the world in online engagement, with visitors spending an average of 45 hours per month online.

The statistics about cyberbullying are particularly troubling and I do not wish to repeat many of the numbers we have heard this evening. I want to focus on two high-profile cases that arose from the U.S. and illustrate quite vividly the problem that this legislation seeks to address.

The first is the tragic case of Megan Meier, a 13-year-old Missouri girl who committed suicide as a result of cyberbullying. What is so shocking about Megan's case is that the bullying was not at the hands of one of her peers but was committed by an adult. In that case, the mother of a former friend of Megans set up a fake Myspace page pretending to be a boy, Josh, who had just moved to the area and was home-schooled. Within a few weeks of Megan becoming friends with this Josh and communicating extensively online with him, the tone of his messages dramatically changed, Eventually, Megan hung herself in the closet. While the mother who orchestrated the fake account was acquitted of murder, the case sparked numerous U.S. states and Congress to consider changing their statutes. The bill before us, Bill C-273, does not limit its application to young offenders.

Another high-profile case, mentioned earlier in discussion by the member for Vancouver Centre, was that of Tyler Clementi, an 18-year-old student at Rutgers University in New Jersey, who committed suicide in 2010 by jumping from the George Washington Bridge. Members may recall it at the time. It was later revealed that Clementi's roommate secretly filmed Clementi's sexual encounter with another man and broadcast it on the Internet without anyone's knowledge. Clementi, who had not yet made his sexual orientation public, took his own life in consequence.

We see, through troubling incidents such as these and others that have been described in debate this evening, that cyberbullying is real and can have devastating consequences. Parliament needs to act to adopt this legislation but parents and legislators must also intervene to denounce cyberbullying and discuss appropriate technology use with our children. While this legislation cannot, in and of itself, prevent cyberbullying, it can deter and dissuade people from it, as well as sanction those engaged in it, something that the current law does not provide.

In the time remaining, I will briefly discuss a few particular concerns that might form the basis for some discussion in committee and potential amendment. Some reference has already been made to this regard.

The first is that there is a lack of uniformity in the terms surrounding the problem, be it cyberbullying, cyberharassment or cyberstalking and the like, or any such variation thereupon. The proposal before us uses none of these but it may be useful to define such terms for greater clarity.

Second is something that is difficult to address. There is the question of the jurisdictional limits and the anonymity of the Internet. As we have observed, even with our own House investigation into threats made by the group Anonymous, it can be difficult for law enforcement personnel to identify, locate, arrest and prosecute alleged offenders.

Third is the issue of harm, as some argue that cyberbullying has only emotional consequences, unlike the physical scars that may result from traditional bullying. Certainly both are problematic and must be addressed and redressed but it may be that online activity requires different wording than what is presently in the Criminal Code. I look forward to submissions in that regard as well.

This bill is a necessary addition to our criminal law to address the ever-growing problem of harassment over the Internet by text message and the like. I look forward to its deliberation in committee and its subsequent passage through the House.

This is but the start of a larger dialogue that we need to engage in as a nation with respect to trying to determine the ethical limits of the conduct and misconduct and the related and appropriate use of technology, as we as parents are now forced to tackle issues that were inconceivable when we were children. I am sure I speak for many of my colleagues when I express the hope that the society which we build should seek to be one in which our children are not targets of harassment and abuse either in person or online.

[Dany Morin, NDP, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to the Liberals' Bill C-273, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cyberbullying). As I mentioned in the questions I asked my Liberal colleague, it is commendable to introduce a bill to move Canada forward and protect adult and youth victims of online cyberbullying. Still, many people believe that harsher punishment for cyberbullies may not be the best way to prevent cyberbullying. I will leave it up to each individual to consider that issue.

What I want to talk about today is the Conservative government's lack of leadership on the cyberbullying issue. Since coming to power, the Conservatives have done nothing to protect young people who are victims of bullying or cyberbullying. That is why my Liberal colleague felt the need to introduce a bill.

There are all kinds of things the Government of Canada could do. Even if the Conservative government does not agree with me, it has a role to play in fighting bullying and cyberbullying.

There is no magical solution to combat youth bullying. Nevertheless, every stakeholder has a role to play, whether it be the federal government, the provinces, the school boards, parents, the young people being bullied, or those that witness it. Everyone has a role to play in addressing this problem.

I am going to give the Conservative government some advice and offer good examples of what has been done by other countries that have decided to take a leadership role in the area of cyberbullying. I would advise my Conservative colleagues to take notes.

Finland has developed the KiVa program, generally considered one of the best national anti-bullying programs in the world. Education is at the heart of this program, and the objective is to encourage witnesses to take action and to put an end to bullying when they see it.

When bullying occurs, instead of removing the culprits from their environment, discussions are organized between the bully, his victim and other young witnesses. The focus is very much on including the community, broadly speaking, in efforts to combat bullying. Schools, for example, are subject to fines if they fail to deal with bullying. Bullies are also subject to fines, regardless of their age. I admit that in Canada, this is an area of provincial jurisdiction.

Here is another example that will perhaps better reflect the way things work in Canada. In United States, the U.S. government created the website www.stopbullying.gov, which provides information for the public on combatting bullying. Additionally, the government organized a White House conference on bullying prevention. I congratulate the American president, Barack Obama. In 2011, with a view to bringing together experts in the field, the government also organized an annual summit for federal partners who work in bullying prevention. The aim was to bring together key stakeholders in the fight against bullying. The stakeholders come from all levels of government and civil society, and they include parents and young advocates. The aim is to encourage co-operation and share best practices.

As a Canadian citizen and an NDP member, I would very much like my own Prime Minister to show as much leadership as the U.S. President. I live in hope, but I am still waiting.

Sweden is also a good example. This country really is a frontrunner in various social areas and has made a number of progressive breakthroughs. Since 1994, the federal government has required that every school develop a plan to fight bullying. It is the responsibility of school principals to ensure the plan is followed. This is something that concerns schools, but there are other things that the government can do. Unfortunately, over the last few years, cyberbullying has spread in society, particularly through social media. More and more young people are victims of cyberbullying.

There have been good initiatives at the provincial level, and I hope the federal government is doing everything it can to support them.

In Ontario, for instance, the Accepting Schools Act sets out potential consequences for bullying, which include expulsion. It also includes increased financial support for training on bullying prevention and encourages schools to create gay-straight alliances.

British Columbia is another leader in the fight against cyberbullying. In 2007, the provincial government gave school boards a mandate to establish policies to fight bullying.

That is a great pity, at the end of the day. It is now 2012, and the Conservative government has not yet put anything on the table. Besides, as far as I know, and I have discussed it with some Conservative MPs, nothing is expected to be put forward that will allow the Canadian government to finally take an active part against cyberbullying.

Coming back to British Columbia, not all of the school boards in the province took part in the initiative. The proposed codes of behaviour for students require that schools work closely with students and parents to fight bullying.

I could talk about many other things. Alberta’s Bill 206 contains some good initiatives. Nova Scotia, unfortunately because of the suicide of a student, Jenna Bowers-Bryanton, has also put forward a measure to respond to cyberbullying. Manitoba has been active on this issue since 2004. Quebec has also passed legislation that requires school boards to develop a plan to fight bullying.

There are many things that different levels of government and society are doing to take action and help young people who are victims of cyberbullying, because the ones who are victims of cyberbullying are primarily—we must admit—young people.

Several economic, government and social players have a role in this. Currently, the Government of Canada is still absent from the equation. We have no national plan to combat cyberbullying, or bullying in general, and no concrete government plan. It is quite deplorable.

I am going to tell my Conservative government what I want. What I want is for the federal government to clearly adopt a leadership role and work alongside the provinces, anti-bullying groups and other key stakeholders in order to address the issue of bullying, particularly, as I mentioned, among youth.

This means more than simply making changes to the Criminal Code; it also means developing a national strategy to fight bullying. Our communities need resources and programs to help them deal with the root causes of bullying.

This is why I will vote in favour of my Liberal colleague's bill. It is a step in the right direction, because currently, the federal government is doing nothing. I thank my colleague for her bill.

The notion of cyberbullying may be abstract to some people. I will try and define it by using the definition of Bill Belsey, who a decade ago created www.cyberbullying.org, an information-packed resource that for years has been providing support and assistance to the young victims of bullying. I would invite my colleagues to visit this website to see the good work that he does.

Cyberbullying involves the use of information and communication technologies to support deliberate, repeated and hostile behaviour by an individual or group that is intended to harm others. I agree entirely with this definition of cyberbullying because, at the end of the day, it involves aggressive behaviour that has very serious ramifications for our youth.

To establish a link with Bill C-213, I should point out that the public also agrees with criminalizing cyberbullying and including it in the Criminal Code. Indeed, an Angus Reid poll has revealed that 65% of Canadians believe that bullying should be considered a crime, even when it does not involve physical violence, while only 19% of Canadians think that bullying should be considered a crime only when it involves violence. Just 6% of Canadians believe that bullying should not be considered a crime. It is quite evident that the vast majority of Canadians support this type of initiative, because people realize that not enough is being done.

Clearly, it is not easy to know why our children are victims of bullying. There may be a number of clues: the child may lose interest in going to school, might be irritable, or may have trouble concentrating.

I will conclude with a sobering observation. People do not realize the extent to which young people are affected by bullying. An analysis of schools in the Toronto area showed that a child is a victim of bullying every seven seconds. It truly is an epidemic. We must at all costs mobilize and fight cyberbullying.

I conclude by saying that the NDP will be pleased to vote in favour of this bill. However, the federal government must do more.

[Robert Goguen, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on Bill C-273, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cyberbullying).

This bill was introduced by the member for Vancouver Centre in September 2011. However, this is not the first time this issue has been brought to the attention of this House, as the member for Vancouver Centre previously introduced a similar private member's bill on the same topic in previous Parliaments.

I do not think I am alone when I say that I think cyberbullying is an issue which requires serious attention from this country's policy-makers and legislators.

Please allow me to take a moment to describe in a bit of detail what Bill C-273 aims to do. It is not a complicated bill. This bill seeks to amend three existing Criminal Code offences. Those offences are section 264, criminal harassment; section 298, defamatory libel; and section 372, false messages, indecent telephone calls and harassing telephone calls.

First, both the criminal harassment provision and the defamatory libel provision would be amended to add a “for greater certainty” provision to each of these offences. This provision would clarify that when the conduct that forms the basis of these offences is committed through the use of a computer or a group of interconnected computers, or in other words over the Internet, that behaviour would be captured by these offences.

The criminal harassment provision is also known as the stalking offence and, among other things, makes it an offence to engage in harassing conduct, knowing or reckless as to whether another person is harassed and which causes the other person to fear for his or her safety or the safety of someone known to him or her. As I said, Bill C-273 would clarify that harassing behaviour could be done through the use of a computer.

I think it is important to note that the courts have already interpreted section 264 of the Criminal Code as applying to conduct that is carried out through the use of computers or over the Internet. Therefore, section 264 as it is presently worded already applies.

As I mentioned, this bill also proposes to amend the definition of defamatory libel found in section 298 of the Criminal Code. The defamatory libel provision is intended to protect the reputation of an individual from matters which are published that could expose the person to hatred, contempt, ridicule or insult.

Bill C-273 would amend the definition found in section 298 to make it clear that this section would apply if the information was published by means of a computer or group of interconnected computers or related computers, the Internet.

Finally, as I previously mentioned, Bill C-273 would also amend section 372 of the Criminal Code, the false messages, indecent telephone calls and harassing telephone calls offence. Section 372 actually contains three criminal offences. First, false messages conveyed by letter, telegram, telephone, among other means. Second, indecent phone calls. Third, harassing phone calls.

Bill C-273 proposes to amend all three offences to extend the scope of the enumerated offences to include the use of computer systems or electronic communications.

The sponsor's stated goal of these proposed amendments is to target the growing use of cyberbullying, the act of bullying another individual through the use of a computer, computer system or the Internet. She indicates that this is a problem which affects over half of Canada's youth, whether they witness the bullying, are victims of bullying or are the bullies themselves.

The member for Vancouver Centre is not alone in recognizing the seriousness of the issue. There have been many attempts to ascertain to what extent bullying and cyberbullying is occurring in Canadian schools and playgrounds. For example, a survey of 2,186 students in the greater Toronto area, conducted by the University of Toronto School of Social Work in 2008, confirms the view that cyberbullying is a growing problem. The results of the survey indicated that in the month prior to the survey, 27% of the students polled, or 1 in 4, had been bullied online, and 35% of the students, or 1 out of every 3, reported that they had bullied someone else.

Another recent survey conducted in 2011 by the Nova Scotia cyberbullying task force found that 60% of Nova Scotian students indicated they had been bullied. As I mentioned previously, there is no doubt that cyberbullying and indeed bullying in its traditional forms should be carefully considered by policy-makers and lawmakers.

The goal of Bill C-273 is laudable and targets a very important issue which is having an increasing impact on Canada's youth.

I would however like to pause for a moment to consider whether the bill's focus on these three criminal offences is the best approach. There are other offences which could also apply in a situation of bullying that are not included in the bill, such as intimidation, section 423, or uttering death threats, section 264, or personation, also known as identity fraud, section 403. Any of these offences, if the facts permitted, could be used in a situation of bullying. Yet Bill C-273 does not propose similar amendments to these offences to clarify that they could be committed over the Internet or via telecommunications.

This leads me to wonder whether the amendments to the Criminal Code proposed by Bill C-273 are a complete response to this issue or if the issue requires further exploration. For example, if the clarification is added to only some of the applicable offences but not all, will there be any negative consequences? Would it lead courts to interpret these other offences as no longer applying when the conduct occurs through the use of a computer or a group of computers?

I also think we should consider whether the bill's focus on cyberbullying is the right focus. It might be useful at this time to explore in more detail the type of behaviour which can be described as bullying itself.

Bullying is defined in many different ways by many different people, but I think it is safe to say that bullying includes a wide range of behaviour that can include conduct such as insults, threats and physical aggression that are intended to reduce the targeted person's perceived power and that can have a physical and/or emotional impact on the targeted person.

Cyberbullying is used to refer to such conduct that is carried out through the use of new technologies, including the Internet. Bullying has been around for as long as human beings have socialized with each other. But the recent explosion of new technologies has created a new way to commit an old offence with increased speed, reach, prevalence, duration and impact on young people.

Cyberbullying provides the perpetrators with a sense of anonymity and follows the victims wherever they go. Victims of cyberbullying often report that when the bullying takes place online, the impact of the bullying is felt more profoundly.

As I am sure all members are aware, bullying and cyberbullying have been receiving much media attention over the past few years as high profile cases of teen suicide have been linked regrettably to this issue. These tragic cases highlight the importance of addressing the issue of bullying which is becoming of increasing importance to Canadians.

Once again I would like to thank the member for Vancouver Centre for bringing this important issue before us today. I hope that as we continue to consider Bill C-273 we can also consider some of the questions that I have posed.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

moved that Bill C-273, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cyberbullying), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure again to stand in the House to speak to this bill.

Bill C-273 is an act to amend the Criminal Code under the heading of cyberbullying. There are three sections of the Criminal Code that are applicable here and that are currently applicable.

The first is “Criminal Harassment”, which states:

No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.

That includes repeatedly communicating this criminal harassment, directly or indirectly, to the other person or anyone known to them and engaging in threatening conduct. It is an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

The second component of the Criminal Code that I need to talk about is section 298, which is about defamatory libel.

Defamatory libel is anything that is:

published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him [or her] to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published.

A defamatory libel may be published directly, by insinuation or irony, in words legibly marked upon any substance.

The third piece that I attempt to change is the one that speaks to the issue of false messaging, which states:

[Anyone] who, with intent to injure or alarm any person, conveys or causes or procures to be conveyed by letter, telegram, telephone, cable, radio or otherwise information that he [or she] knows is false is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

What I am attempting to do with these three areas is amend the Criminal Code by adding “using electronic messaging” and “using a computer” to be able to continue to do these three prohibited components in the Criminal Code.

Today, if we look at any of those issues, whether it be defamatory libel, et cetera, one cannot use a telephone to do it, one cannot print it on paper, one cannot say it to someone else or say it on the radio. However, we now have a new modern mode of communication called the computer or electronic media. People have been using that communications mode in order to commit these three prohibited criminal offences. What I intend to do is add the new communications mode, which is the computer or electronic messaging, to the Criminal Code.

I want to add that it is very important to understand that cyberbullying is not an age-related thing. Bullying may be age related, such as when somebody pushes somebody in the school, calls them a name, talks to people in the school and makes fun of them. That is the kind of bullying we are very familiar with in the playground and in the school. The thing about the new method of communications, via computer, electronic messaging and social messaging, is that the person can be of any age. It goes on in offices. A neighbour who may not like us or someone who knows us in political life or another life may try to spread information about a person at any age. The insidiousness of using this mode of communication is that it is there forever. We can be 90 years old and it is still there in social media, in a computer, set there for life, whatever it is these people did that fall under the subsections of the Criminal Code I am speaking about.

Students say to us that they are bullied in the schoolyard but when they go home they know they are safe, they are with their family and friends and they can escape the harassment and the statements people are making about them. Today, it is on people's BlackBerrys, iPhones or computers. It is inescapable. They can travel from Penticton to Bonn, Germany, and it follows them everywhere. Therefore, whatever happens with respect to cyberbullying is there forever and follows people wherever they go, to whatever corner of the earth and whatever age. That makes it an insidious, dangerous and permanent form of bullying.

It is a new phenomenon that is linked to advancements in technology. One can be bullied by mobile, wireless and the Internet. Bullying can happen by posting harmful, cruel text messages or images, by posting sensitive private information about another person, by pretending to be someone else to make a person look bad or by intentionally smearing someone from an online group. Bullying, no matter where it occurs, is about power, control and human relationships. The intent is to harass, degrade and inflict harm and fear. This is different from traditional bullying as it is done with anonymity. That is another piece of cyberbullying. It is anonymous. For example, it could be from somebody named [e-mail]. One would have no idea who the person is. Therefore, anonymity is a problem.

As I said, the reach of the Internet is international, reaches around the world and endures over the course of one's life. There are many campaigns out there to combat bullying and many are in schools. Although this type of bullying is not age restricted, recent examples of the impact of bullying that we know about are mostly in schools. Quite often adults do not like to complain. It is shameful for them to know that somebody is bullying them and they do not know who is doing it. They try to hide it and keep it secret. Therefore, the data that has been collected so far has been from a lot of information collected in schools, but I will give one example outside of a school.

As with Jamie Hubley and the high-profile case of Tyler Clementi in the United States, cyberbullying can affect one's mental health, well-being, academic performance and ability to get a job. For people who were cyberbullied when they were 25 years old, if that was pulled up when they were trying get a promotion at age 50, it might be conceived as true and the answer to the promotion might be no. It affects every aspect of one's life.

A recent study by Jennifer Shapka at UBC found that children especially do not equate cyberbullying with traditional forms of bullying and that currently all of the anti-bullying techniques we have set up to deal with bullying do not work. They work for the traditional in-your-face bullying such as name-calling, shoving and pushing, but they do not actually work to prevent cyberbullying. We need to look at this as a real problem.

In the study of 17,000 Vancouver students, 30% reported taking part in cyberbullying compared to 12% who took part in real bullying. Only 12% take part in real bullying because they are identifiable and so most do not do it. However, they feel anonymous and safe when they cyberbully and so a larger percentage have been cyberbullying.

A startling revelation was that 95% said that what happens online is only intended as a joke. However, this joking does serious and permanent harm. Again, one of the problems with cyberbullying is that people have no way of knowing if it is a joke or not. They do not see facial expressions with cyberbullying nor do they see mannerisms. It is just a clear cut statement.

Another difference is the anonymity, as I said, and I want to reflect on that end of it. It means that anyone today can be a bully because they can hide behind that anonymity. It could be someone who everyone respects and thinks is a really neat person who is doing the bullying. The perception that a bully has to be more powerful, bigger or more popular applies only in one-on-one bullying in a school yard or face to face. It does not apply with online bullying.

Much of the content posted online can follow people for the rest of their lives. It never goes away, even after their death. Therefore, there are serious implications with cyberbullying, and one is that it can lead to suicide. I mentioned Tyler Clementi. He was a young gay student who took his life after his roommate at university video-recorded his personal relationship with another young male over the Internet. Shortly afterwards, Tyler jumped off a bridge. A court recently found Tyler's roommate guilty of a number of offences, including breach of privacy and hate crime.

Those types of bullying happen every day. I believe as legislators we have a responsibility to lead by example. That is why I have introduced this legislation that I hope all members will support. It does not create any new Criminal Code legislation. It uses the existing Criminal Code legislation, the sections that deal with defamatory libel, false messages and criminal harassment.

Adding electronic forms of communication to those sections would clarify cyberbullying in the same manner as traditional print, telecommunications, television and radio are also identified under these headings. Other jurisdictions are beginning to look at how to combat cyberbullying, and this is happening in the European Union now. Actually Nova Scotia is leading in Canada in looking at this issue.

No legislation can end bullying or cyberbullying, but this change would offer a protection to the victim and decrease the risk of cyberbullying because people would understand that there is a penalty attached to it and it would take away the powerlessness that the victim feels. There is nothing more effective than public awareness campaigns, programming in schools, et cetera, but this bill would raise awareness, encourage a debate and it would lead to a Criminal Code that is keeping pace with new advancements in technology.

I hope members will support this bill. I want to stress that this problem of cyberbullying is pervasive, is not limited to any age, will follow us through the rest of our life and is now happening in every environment, whether in Parliament or among office staff, friends or community advocates. People out there are engaging in cyberbullying constantly. I want to stress that this is not an age-related issue and it can harm people for the rest of their lives and even until after death. I know there are physical and psychological effects of cyberbullying, but the fact is that it is broader reaching than the schoolyard and the office. The damage and harm continues. It is forever there in cyberspace for anyone to see or to read.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Are there any comments or questions?

All in favour?

It is so ordered.

We'll now turn to Bill C-273.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-273, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cyberbullying).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to reintroduce my private member's bill, which is an act to amend sections 264, 298 and 372 of the Criminal Code in order to clarify that cyberbullying is an offence. Cyberbullying is a problem that touches over half of Canada's youth, whether they witness bullying, are victims or are bullies themselves.

In a recent study by the University of Toronto, 50% of surveyed students reported that they had been bullied online and this insidious form of online bullying can follow youth through their whole lives.

This bill has the support of the Canadian Teachers' Federation and most media and other levels of communication are included under sections of this bill. It is time to add electronic communication.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)