Bill C-13 (Historical)

Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to provide, most notably, for
(a) a new offence of non-consensual distribution of intimate images as well as complementary amendments to authorize the removal of such images from the Internet and the recovery of expenses incurred to obtain the removal of such images, the forfeiture of property used in the commission of the offence, a recognizance order to be issued to prevent the distribution of such images and the restriction of the use of a computer or the Internet by a convicted offender;
(b) the power to make preservation demands and orders to compel the preservation of electronic evidence;
(c) new production orders to compel the production of data relating to the transmission of communications and the location of transactions, individuals or things;
(d) a warrant that will extend the current investigative power for data associated with telephones to transmission data relating to all means of telecommunications;
(e) warrants that will enable the tracking of transactions, individuals and things and that are subject to legal thresholds appropriate to the interests at stake; and
(f) a streamlined process of obtaining warrants and orders related to an authorization to intercept private communications by ensuring that those warrants and orders can be issued by a judge who issues the authorization and by specifying that all documents relating to a request for a related warrant or order are automatically subject to the same rules respecting confidentiality as the request for authorization.
The enactment amends the Canada Evidence Act to ensure that the spouse is a competent and compellable witness for the prosecution with respect to the new offence of non-consensual distribution of intimate images.
It also amends the Competition Act to make applicable, for the purpose of enforcing certain provisions of that Act, the new provisions being added to the Criminal Code respecting demands and orders for the preservation of computer data and orders for the production of documents relating to the transmission of communications or financial data. It also modernizes the provisions of the Act relating to electronic evidence and provides for more effective enforcement in a technologically advanced environment.
Lastly, it amends the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act to make some of the new investigative powers being added to the Criminal Code available to Canadian authorities executing incoming requests for assistance and to allow the Commissioner of Competition to execute search warrants under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.

Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague made some very interesting points in her speech.

I want to ask whether she is aware that there is a significant difference between Bill C-13 and the previous Bill C-30. For instance, all production orders, all search warrants, for retention of any of this information that would be important for the police and prosecutors in order to properly prosecute a case for cyberbullying, is subject to prior judicial oversight. I wonder if she could tell us whether she knows that or if she has a comment on that.

Also, I wonder if she could take a look at recommendation four of the Cybercrime Working Group report, which she referred to in her speech, and tell us which of those investigative powers she thinks is valid. The Cybercrime Working Group report said that all of those investigative powers were needed in order to support an offence of cyberbullying.

Could she take a look at those to see if she is prepared to accept them as part of the cyberbullying bill, or does she still want those separated into two different bills?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very fair question. I spoke to those matters, but I am happy to address them again.

We are hearing the government state that it has majorly shifted and that the bill now requires warrants. The issue that is still outstanding is what the burden of proof is for those warrants and whether the government is inventing a different burden of proof in these matters. That is a matter that merits legal expertise and discussion at committee, to give reassurances to Canadians.

On the matter of recommendation four from the intergovernmental report, I will note specifically that it recommends improved judicial oversight. That is exactly the matter that we wish to discuss. Is it in fact the same level of judicial oversight that we would normally anticipate in the judicial process, or is it being varied? If we can be reassured on that, then I think there would be fewer objections to the bill.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, through lines of questioning I have been able to emphasize how important it is that we have legislation.

It could be a private member's bill. I made reference to the Liberal member for Vancouver Centre. Members of the Liberal Party have been very clear that cyberbullying is a horrific crime and we need to take action and bring in legislation that will deal with the issue.

I want to pick up on the point that the member referenced in terms of deterring crime. This is something we are not necessarily seeing from the government. To use the example of schools, if we want to prevent cyberbullying from taking place in the first place, taking a proactive approach within the school system, the curriculum and so forth, could go a long way to preventing some of these horrific crimes. That is not to mention the workforce and so on, but just to focus on the school boards.

I would ask the member to comment further. She made reference to deterring crime and that not only is government responsible for bringing in legislation where it is necessary but also for providing good solid programming to prevent some of these crimes from taking place.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, another of my colleagues is going to address the question about the need for more educational programs.

However, the issue of deterrence is different. Prevention means there are education programs in schools and communities, in the government, on websites and so forth. Deterrence means there are provisions and penalties in law that will deter.

However, the most critical piece is that there has to be some kind of reasonable probability that the crime will be detected. That means there needs to be some kind of strategic risk-based strategy on how the government is going to focus its resources on enforcing this bill. That is what we have not heard from the government. Frankly, we have not heard that from the government in every bill it has brought forward and that I have spoken to. A law is fine, but if the appropriate resources and a strategic plan are not in place to target the crime and provide a deterrent, then it is all for naught.

One of the things that the government might consider adding is innovative sentencing. That occurs in regulatory offences, and maybe it would be appropriate in this case as well.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the terrific member for Sackville—Eastern Shore. It is a great honour to share my time with him.

We have been talking a lot about the bill. At the end of my comments, I will talk about some of the concerns I have about how this bill has been put together by the government and the concerns that we have heard from my colleagues about other aspects of the bill that have been included.

What I would like to talk about is what most of us have shared in the House: our concerns about cyberbullying and the influence of the Internet as a tool used by those who want to frighten, abuse and intimidate people.

Three names come to mind in recent past. We have lost the lives of some very vulnerable young people. Amanda Todd, Rehtaeh Parsons and, in Ottawa and indirectly related to the issue we are talking about, Jamie Hubley. These are names that brought this issue to the forefront and I want to mention their names because it was really quite something when we lost these young people. There was an outpouring of sentiment, but it also caused legislators like us to reflect on what we could do. That is very profound, because, as we know, that does not always happen. It was a moment where we saw members of Parliament and members of provincial legislatures try to look at how we could deal with this issue.

I would like to take it and relate it to what my friend from Edmonton—Strathcona was talking about. Let us take another look at this, beyond the scope of this law, and talk about the issue a bit more. We need to look at the fact that it is not just the Internet.

Before I was elected as a member of Parliament, I was a teacher. On many occasions, I had to deal with young people who were very isolated. They were people who came to me because they were feeling vulnerable. There were a number of cases where I had students who were contemplating suicide. Because they had no one else to turn to, as a teacher, I ended up being the person who they dealt with.

It always took me by surprise how few resources there were for young people to turn and get help. That is something we can work on with the provincial governments, providing people with assistance. It is not just about the Internet. It is about the fact that people are isolated. When I was teaching, there was certainly a concern about how the Internet was being used. Now we have social networking, which is part of the issue we are talking about now. It is interesting. There is a paradox. This young generation is the most connected generation in the history of the world. My sons can Skype with someone on the other side of the world and connect with people. The paradox is that we have the most connected generation, but we also see some of the most isolated young people ever.

As we have heard many times, the technology is such that people can go inward if they are in a cycle of depression, if they feel isolated, or if people are intimidating or bullying them. They can just go into the virtual world. Mr. Speaker, you are a parent. You know that the virtual world is fraught with all sorts of danger and concerns. We need to address that. As others have said, and we agree with them, the bill is about making some changes in the Criminal Code, but it does not solve the problem. We have to look at prevention as well.

When I was teaching, I worked with the Media Awareness Network. It is a fantastic not-for-profit group that deals with media literacy. I was able to avail myself of its resources when I was in the classroom. What we did was talk with young people about the messages they were getting in the media, now on the Internet and social networking sites, with which they were bombarded.

They are being bombarded with messages about how they should behave, what they should do and what they should buy. For young women, in particular, it is about how they should look. They are being pushed to consume things or buy things to somehow become a better person, when we know that the essence of someone's personality is about the values they carry and the influences they have to make them better people, not how they look, what they buy or what they consume.

I look at the curriculum in our schools, the resources for young people and it is not enough. We can do our jobs as parents, but let us be frank about this. When kids reach adolescence, they actually turn away from their parents and are more influenced by their peers. In this virtual world that has been created through the Internet and technology, with Facebook, Twitter, et cetera, there are obvious temptations for people to reach out to others to essentially give them confidence in who they are. This is where we saw the problems for the people I mentioned, like Amanda Todd.

Just recently, we heard from Amanda Todd's mother, who was speaking about media awareness, I believe it was last week in Winnipeg. What she was saying to parents, educators and everyone was that we needed to connect with each other to help our young people. Yes, we need to ensure we know what our young people are accessing on the Internet, on Facebook, et cetera, but we also need to have that human dimension. That is where we need to see our schools and our communities reaching out to people to bring them in and for those who are feeling vulnerable, to offer opportunities for them to share with us what their anxieties are.

I have talked to numerous educators. My wife is a teacher as well. What we have noticed lately is that there is much more anxiety among young people now than there ever was. Again, it is connected to how people are connected. They are feeling bombarded by Facebook, with Twitter and texting, where people who want to lash out or isolate someone can do it without really facing someone. That is the whole problem here. It is the anonymity.

Therefore, there are a lot of anxious young people. We see this in the skyrocketing number of them who are being identified with anxiety disorder. This is, frankly, what we should be looking at because once people are feeling anxious and they turn to social media to find friends and community in a virtual world, we then see where they can really descend into chaos. We see luring happening there. We see people who try to pretend to be friends draw people in and then abuse them.

If we are going to understand the issue that we are talking about today, we need to go beyond just changes to the Criminal Code, which of course we support.

Let us see the federal government work with our partners at the provincial level to come up with really smart media awareness programs that are well resourced, and I mentioned the Media Awareness Network is a terrific resource, if we are to help young people be aware and be literate when it comes to what they are confronted with on line.

This is not about the government doing it for them. Let me be clear about that. This is about the government resourcing groups that are already working on these issues. It means that we all take this issue with a lot more depth than just saying we will change the Criminal Code and that will somehow fix it. It means we have to look to those who are victimized.

I will just underline a couple of groups that are obviously important here. I think of trans-youth and gay and lesbian youth. I think of those who are different because of the way they look, or the fact that they may be introverted. We need to reach out to them.

I wish Bill C-13 was just about that. I wish the government had not brought in these other measures, which we have some concerns with about privacy that have been noted.

What I want to finish off with is, let this not be the end of this issue. Let us look at how we can better reach out to young people. Finally, a smart suggestion would be to reach out and listen to young people, because they will have as many ideas as we have on how to help young people who are so isolated.

My final recommendation would be for the government to work with the provinces to actually create spaces to hear from young people, for them to make recommendations on how to combat cyberbullying, as we call it, but deep isolation. Therefore, at the end of the day, we can say that we have been able to help prevent these horrific, tragic deaths we have seen, in the names of Rehtaeh Parsons, Amanda Todd and Jamie Hubley.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, my friend is quite right: bullying and cyberbullying are about more than just Criminal Code provisions. They are a social issue that needs to be addressed by schools, by non-governmental organizations and by community groups. In fact, he is probably aware that the government has supported for over two years several programs developed by the Canadian Centre for Child Protection on just the issue of bullying and cyberbullying. The government has provided over $10 million for these programs. The Canadian Centre for Child Protection operates two websites: cybertip.ca and needhelpnow.ca. They provide counselling and preventative information to young people about the threat of social and consequences of social media.

The member mentioned the sad case of Jamie Hubley. Has he heard these words from his father, Allan Hubley, about Bill C-13? On November 20, he said:

When we were younger, you always knew who your bully was, you could do something about it. Now, up until the time this legislation gets enacted, they can hide behind that. Not only does it start to take the mask off of them, through this legislation there is serious consequences for their actions.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for pointing out the resources that exist, and obviously I support those initiatives. Mr. Hubley is a local councillor and I have joined with many in our community to go public and talk about the issues within our community. Many of the students within Jamie's school were responsible for either being bystanders or participating in the deep isolation for a young gay man. We need to address that.

I would finally point out that, along with some of the resources that my colleague mentioned, there is also a terrific group called “Digital Voices”. It is another group that is working together to give strategies to young people. What it talks about is “stop, think, connect”: stop and think about what they are saying, what they are doing online to young people; then connect with people if they are feeling deeply isolated. These are the kinds of things we need to continue to talk about.

Finally, I will just underline that I had a youth summit just two weeks ago to hear from young people about what they thought we should be doing, not just on this issue but on the economy. If we start really listening to young people and having them as part of the decision making, we will go a long way further than we have already.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, there is no shortage of individuals and advocates who really want to see action being taken on the cyberbullying issue. I suspect all members of Parliament would love and welcome the opportunity to see legislation put into place as early as before the end of this year. That would be most helpful.

My question for the member is this, and we have heard this suggestion in the House over the last couple of days, whether it is the Liberal Party or the New Democratic Party, who have said it. Could we not take out certain aspects of the current legislation and then allow that to ultimately pass through so we are dealing specifically with the issue of cyberbullying in which all Canadians want to see some action? Would the member expand on that point of how quickly we could pass something through all levels that are required to be passed in order to have something effective for cyberbullying before even Christmas time of this year?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, that is why we have moved to split the bill and then to get it passed at all stages as quickly as possible.

I want to leave with these words from Carol Todd, Amanda Todd's mother, about what happened. She said, “She got trapped in the Internet.…Someone convinced her she was beautiful…that she should be her friend…and it turned out to be someone quite evil.

That really stuck with me. What I am saying is that yes we can put those provisions in and yes we should support them. However, at the end of the day, we have to look at what this young woman was going through and ask ourselves what we were doing as a community. What were we doing as a society to allow someone to become so isolated? Our work has to continue on helping people who are isolated. That is why we should set up ways for young people to inform us and the government and give them the space to effect what goes on. We should do that in all our communities and that is the challenge I put out to all my colleagues, as well as to the government formally.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Ottawa Centre for a very respectful speech in regard to this very serious issue of cyberbullying. A couple of our NDP colleagues have already moved legislation forward in this regard in order to discuss and combat the scourge of cyberbullying that is affecting our country.

When I was a little kid growing up, we always heard the expression “sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me”. Now it is “gigs and bytes you may not like”. That is what I heard the other day.

The reality is that this is a new era now, one in which our young people are communicating back and forth at lightning speed, in many cases with people they do not even know. In many cases, these are people who prey upon them.

For years now, I have had legislation on the books that came from former MP Chris Axworthy on Internet child pornography. In it we were basically trying to get the Internet service providers to have some responsibility to monitor the sites and, when something of that nature came forward, to inform the police and make sure that appropriate action was being taken.

There is no question that this legislation is a good start. We hope to get it to committee in order to get it split and be able to move it very quickly, as my colleagues on both sides have said very clearly.

However, I want to focus on something that is a little more personal in terms of the family.

We can have all the legislation that we want. We can have all the enforcement, punishment, and everything else that we could have in terms of this issue, and yes, it would deter and possibly stop some people from doing it, but it will not be the end of it all.

If we look at drunk driving, we see tough measures against it across the country, but people still drink and drive. The United States has the death penalty in certain states, but the reality is that murders are still happening. The reality is that we can have the toughest cyberbullying legislation in the world, but it will not eliminate it completely. It would deter it and reduce it, but it would not eliminate it.

However, what may assist these young men and women when they feel the effects of cyberbullying is the conversation with their parents and their peers.

I have two daughters, aged 25 and 22, who grew up with the Internet and all of that kind of technology, but my wife was very clear and careful to ensure that a conversation took place on a regular basis about being very careful of what they typed into computer and being very careful about what they looked at on Facebook, and now the tweets and so on.

That conversation has to take place. The government or opposition members cannot be the sole source of remedying this situation. This has to be a national conversation across the country. I encourage all families, all legal guardians, and everyone else to have that national conversation with their children so that they understand the dangers and the threats of the Internet and what happens on Facebook when they post pictures or say certain things that can be interpreted in the wrong way.

When I grew up in Vancouver, I grew up in a group home. My parents had over 400 children come to our home over 23 years. Some stayed with us for a few hours, some for a few weeks, a few days, or a few months. Some even stayed for a couple of years.

The one thread that connected each and every one of those kids was love and respect. All these kids did not feel the love and they did not feel they had any respect. They did not feel they were contributing members to our society. They all felt that it was their fault. They all felt that it was a burden. When a 10-year-old tells my parents, “I can make more money on Davie Street in 20 minutes than I can working at home for a week”, there is a serious problem.

These kids are vulnerable and subject to anyone out there that will prey upon them. This is how cyberbullying works. Just as it was in the old days, they prey upon those who may be vulnerable. They prey upon those who may be a bit curious as to what is going on. Then the children get into that vortex or trap, and the next thing is they become victims.

Amanda Todd, Rehtaeh Parsons from Nova Scotia, and Jamie Hubley in Ottawa were three beautiful young people who had a tremendous amount to offer. They had the opportunity to become great citizens of our country. Who know what they may have been able to have done with their lives? Unfortunately, with the pressures they felt, they felt they had no other way out, for lack of a better term, than to end their own lives.

When a young child commits suicide, it affects not just their own family, and again my condolences and thoughts and prayers go out to all those families and friends; when a young child commits suicide, it should affect every single Canadian citizen. As my colleague from Ottawa Centre said so clearly, “What were we all doing?” What responsibility did we have when these kids were starting to look for help? What responsibility do we have, not just as politicians but as friends, as neighbours, as family members?

We cannot just avoid it and say that it is the school's responsibility or the government's responsibility. It is our collective community responsibility to reach out to the disenfranchised in our society.

The LGBT society, for years and years, has advocated just to have normal relationships with the rest of society. For years, society has put them down because they were different.

I represent one the largest Black communities in Canada, the original Black community of Preston. For years and years, the racism that community had to face was unconscionable. In many cases, in certain areas, it still exists.

We have a long way to go. I go to many schools, and we always hear the word “tolerant”. We hear that we are tolerant of each other. I am asking all parliamentarians and all Canadians to throw that word out. We should get the Webster dictionary to throw that word away. We should be celebrating our diversity. Whether someone is from Asia, Africa, Europe, or elsewhere, and whether someone is aboriginal, gay, straight, lesbian, or transgender, it should not matter.

We should all be equal under God's eyes. We, as parliamentarians, should set the example of equality for all. Whether one is disabled, young, man or woman, child or senior, it does not matter: we should all be treated equally in this regard. We should respect one another. We can disagree, but we do not have to be disagreeable.

I am hoping that that national conversation will take place so that no more Amanda Todds and no more Rehteah Parsons have to happen, and that when these young children feel they are under a tremendous amount of pressure, they can not only go to their parents but should be able to reach out to the general society, and we should be there with open arms, saying “We know you have a concern and a problem, and we are going to help you walk through this.”

This legislation is important. It is critical that we get it done right. Apparently there are 37 provisions in this bill that have nothing to do with cyberbullying, so I am hopeful that when the bill gets to committee, the committee members can agree with expert advice to ensure that we get it right the first time.

I am sure not one parliamentarian in this House wants to make a mistake on this one. It is too critical to get it right. However, even if it is the gold-plated model and it gets sent through and it is done, it may not prevent future cyberbullying. What may do it is going back to the personal responsibility that we all have in our community, right across this country and for that matter internationally, to ensure that when someone feels pressure and feels there is no other way out except to commit suicide, we are able to help them.

A friend of mine works at the Kids Help Phone. Even though she is not permitted to tell me the specific nature of the call or the names, when these kids call that number, I know that my friend goes home literally a changed person every night because of some of the calls she takes. She volunteers for that. These kids are reaching out for help.

I am hopeful that we get the legislation right. The government will have our support when it is done correctly, and we will get it to the committee, but on top of that, we need to ensure that all of us—family, friends, parents, and community members right across this country—work together collectively to ensure that we all take responsibility in the raising and the future and the care of our children.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He is certainly one of the gentlemen of this place. I had the pleasure of working very closely with the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore on the veterans committee and it was a pleasant experience indeed, even though we are in different parties.

The hon. member referenced the fact that 37 of the 47 clauses in the bill are taken from the e-snooping bill of Vic Toews, which we were promised would not come back. The clause that is most troubling, frankly, is the one that would give immunity to holders of electronic records if they voluntarily disclose them. This would include telephone companies and Internet service providers. However, that disclosure is not limited to investigations around cyberbullying; it is wide open.

My question to my hon. colleague is on the breadth of the legislation. Does he have any concerns with respect to the e-snooping and online surveillance capacity of the legislation?

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member is absolutely correct.

We have to make sure that we get the legislation correct and that it deals with what we are talking about in terms of cyberbullying. The legislation contains other components that are not related to cyberbullying. We are hoping that the government will understand that, take those provisions out and have them discussed in a separate piece of legislation. That would enable us to focus strictly on the matter at hand, which is cyberbullying.

We should not muddy the waters on this one. We owe it to the memories of Jamie Hubley, Amanda Todd and Rehtaeh Parsons to get this right, and especially for their families.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice]

Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore for his speech.

There are a couple of quotes that I remember from his speech. He said that all parents need to have a conversation with their children about cyberbullying and about bullying in general. We absolutely agree with that. I think everyone here agrees with that. He also said that it is our collective community responsibility to give young people the tools they need to protect themselves against any form of bullying. I commend him for that, and I think we all agree with that as well.

Earlier we talked about the Canadian Centre for Child Protection and the things it is doing with NeedHelpNow.ca. The member for Ottawa Centre mentioned Digital Voices. These are all tools that are available now to help people.

The member also mentioned 37 clauses that have nothing to do with cyberbullying, but I do not think he is correct. If he looks at recommendation 4 of the working group report he would see that they require data preservation demands and orders, new production orders to trace a specified communication, new warrants of production orders for transmission data, improved judicial oversight while enhancing efficiencies in relation to authorizations, as well as warrants and orders and other amendments to existing offences to give the police the investigative power they need to in fact make the cyberbullying provisions work.

I submit to the member that if we were to take out many of the provisions he is highlighting in that number, the cyberbullying bill that we are all here to debate today would be toothless and unenforceable.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the last thing I would confess to is having a legal mind, but I do know that when the bill gets to committee we will be inviting those experts who understand the legal technicalities of the warrants, the search premises and all the stuff within the parameters of the bill.

It is rather ironic that I am talking about cyberbullying when I myself do not even use a computer, smart phone or BlackBerry in any way, shape or form. However, the reality is that many of my colleagues and friends do, as do their families and kids.

Whatever provisions are added or deleted, at the end of the day what is most critical, and I am sure the hon. member would agree, is that the bill is done right, that there are no court challenges, that the Supreme Court years down the road will not strike it down because of some technicality.

We have to make sure of that collectively. It would not just be the government's fault. It would be all of our faults if we do not get it done right the first time.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by applauding my many colleagues who have worked tirelessly to address cyberbullying. The hon. members for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord and Dartmouth—Cole Harbour both feel strongly about that issue and have shown admirable dedication. The member for Gatineau also spoke on this issue on Wednesday. In her eloquent, nuanced and compassionate speech, she explained that politicians have a duty to take action on this issue.

I would like to touch on two topics today. First of all, this cyberbullying bill does talk about cyberbullying, as one would expect. However, it also touches on a wide variety of issues that have nothing, or very little, to do with cyberbullying. As these issues are covered in the bill, they must be discussed, although we would have preferred to stay focused on the most pressing issue.

The most pressing issue, of course, is cyberbullying. The traditional bullying that used to happen face to face in schoolyards has now become an after-school, underhanded and often anonymous activity. By its very nature, this type of bullying can occur at any time rather than only during the school day. There is no refuge; victims know that the violence will keep on going even if they try to ignore or escape from it.

Everybody can be a victim and it can happen anywhere. We know, however, that the victims are most often our children. With the current technology, it is all too easy to conduct heinous and malevolent attacks, a behaviour that likely reflects a more generalized malaise, as well as a lack of goals and optimism in our society. This new and violent phenomenon has a long-term impact on the lives of thousands of young people, as well as other individuals and families.

As is the case for any phenomenon that affects the health, safety and well-being of Canadians, elected officials must recognize the problem and take action. It is no longer a question of this being a good initiative, it is a question of our responsibility as elected officials. It is our duty to work together to identify the most effective legislative response as quickly as possible to help those who are persecuted and are suffering even today. It is our duty to not create distractions that could delay the implementation of measures, or even worse, undermine this objective.

Therefore, I wish to salute the people in this chamber who have tackled this issue, recognized the importance of this problem and listened to parents and those working in the schools. I am referring to the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord in particular, who channelled his long-standing passion for this issue into Motion No. 385 to create a national bullying prevention strategy. Unfortunately, in spite of my colleague's motion, we still do not have a strategy. I continue to hope that the government will move forward on this issue.

My colleague, the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, made a point of meeting with the families and stakeholders following the death of a young girl whose name we are unfortunately all familiar with. This is a human tragedy that has been given a great deal of media coverage in recent months. We must also recognize the good intentions of our colleague from Vancouver Centre, who has also worked on this issue. We should also note this government's good intentions, because it is consulting the provinces and territories in order to find solutions. Everyone here agrees that we have a responsibility towards those who are victims of cyberbullying.

Bill C-540 illustrated the urgent need for action and, to that end, sought a consensus among parliamentarians devoid of any partisanship. The Conservatives told us that we had to be patient because there was work to be done, with the provinces and territories in particular, before such a bill could be passed. In the case of such crucial issues, it is good to hear about co-operation rather than confrontation.

In the end, the government introduced a bill very similar to the one brought forward by my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour. Bill C-13 would make it an offence under the Criminal Code to publish, distribute, transmit, sell, make available or advertise an intimate image of a person, knowing that the person depicted in the image did not give their consent, or being reckless as to whether or not that person gave their consent. The bill also allows courts to make an order to seize and electronically destroy the images and mentions the recovery of expenses incurred to obtain the removal of such images.

It becomes apparent that these clauses, in large part taken from Bill C-540, actually make up a small portion of Bill C-13. They account for roughly six or seven of the bill's 47 clauses. According to this Tuesday's Le Devoir, only three of the bill's 65 pages actually deal with cyberbullying.

I get the urge to end my speech right there, to sit back down and to rise again on a completely different subject, so that I can address the 40 or so other clauses in the bill that deal with completely different issues.

It is not a single bill we have before us, but two, three or even four bills.

It is as if, in response to the SARS crisis of 2003, the government had insisted on abolishing VIA Rail before moving to establish the Public Health Agency of Canada. It makes no sense. It is like holding an urgent public issue hostage.

The second part of Bill C-13 amends not only the Criminal Code, but also the Competition Act and the Terrorist Financing Act. It deals with banks' financial data, the theft of telecommunication services and telemarketing.