Evidence of meeting #60 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was cyberbullying.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4 p.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Well, you'd have to know whose Internet privileges you're cutting off. The point is that you don't know.
At the moment—
4 p.m.
Conservative
Robert Goguen Conservative Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
How could you prosecute them without knowing—
4 p.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
The point is that you don't know, at the moment, and this is where the question arises: you don't know.
You have the ability to get the telephone company to tell you who's been making those calls. You have the ability, even if that person has an unlisted number. Even if they're using a cellphone, you do have that ability currently to do this. You do not have that ability to ensure that ISPs can tell you who is using their service to do this. You don't.
So I think your RCMP officer must have had a nice way of getting around some of these. I have heard from the police themselves that they haven't and that they need this tool.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you, Ms. Fry.
Thank you, Monsieur Goguen.
The next questioner from the NDP is Monsieur Morin.
Welcome.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Dany Morin NDP Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't have much of a voice, but I will still do a good job.
Dr. Fry, I would first like to thank you for supporting a coordinated strategy aimed at preventing bullying. Regardless of the final strategy, I think that betting on prevention to protect our youths is a winner for the country. A number of times in your presentation, you said you wanted to prevent as many cases of bullying or cyberbullying as possible, since it can have a negative impact on the lives of young people. I also note that you have chosen concrete and quick action—in this case, your bill.
With respect to your bill, I would like to know if you think amending the Criminal Code will discourage bullies or cyberbullies from bullying their victims. Although this bill aims to reinforce the criminalization of these actions, do you think prevention will have a place there? The experts I have consulted were more alarmed than reassured. That is how I feel as well. That is why I would like to hear what you think.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
I'm going to go back and say again that I'm not asking that we add new pieces to the Criminal Code that will create criminal offences that are not already there. These are criminal offences that are already there.
I would like to read to you subsection 372(1) of the code, which says:
Every one 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 knows is false is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
We're not just talking about simple cyberbullying. There is a place when cyberbullying crosses to become “false messages”, which is the section I'm reading from. The point is that if it's been clearly stated what are the modes of communication....
It says “or otherwise”, and some people are interpreting it to not mean computers, while others may say, yes, it does mean computers. The point is that it's not clear, and my bill is to clarify those criminal elements.
I'm not talking about, you know, saying that Dany Morin has a sore throat and can't speak, and putting that on social media.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Dany Morin NDP Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Dr. Fry, I have another question.
Do you make a difference between...or do you think your law should apply to young offenders, minors, as well as adults? We all know that young children and teenagers can be stupid and not realize the full impact of their actions. Do you think it is wise to put forward such a bill, which could potentially open a Pandora's box and make a dangerous precedent of criminalizing young children?
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
No, because as I said earlier on, I wasn't talking about bullying through young children alone. I've given you examples of adult cyberbullying that went on to create problems for people, including the young tennis player I talked about.
The point here is that we have laws under which minors and young children have committed offences. No one is trying to change that. There is a question of when a person is or isn't young enough to be looking at what they're doing. But if young people understand the difference between some of the things they use the Internet for and some things that are in fact crossing over.... It's like saying to a young child that it's one thing for you to run around and call names at somebody, but if you take a baseball bat and beat that kid in the parking lot, you have just committed murder.
What young people need to know is that there is a line that they can or cannot cross, which most young people, I believe, wouldn't want to cross.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Dany Morin NDP Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Right.
I would like to ask you one last question, Dr. Fry.
My colleague, Mr. Goguen, spoke about…
academics who argue that prevention is the way to go, rather than criminalization.
You said you've consulted with people. But most academics that I've also consulted with said that prevention is the way to go.
Who have you consulted with?
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
I've consulted with academics, but not every academic in Canada, obviously, Mr. Morin.
4:10 p.m.
NDP
Dany Morin NDP Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
True.
However, did most of the academics you consulted tell you to go with criminalization or prevention?
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
No, because most people recognize that in any strategy to deal with a problem—and I believe this is a public health problem because it creates morbidity and death—there is no one silver bullet. You have to look at a series of things that are going to deal with the issue. Prevention alone will not do it.
I'm a physician, and I can tell you that there is absolutely no disease or public health illness that can be cured by prevention alone. There are many that can't. So you have to deal with looking at prevention as one of the obvious core elements of the strategy, but then you have to move on to areas in which they are unable to do prevention, and you have to then deal with enforcement.
I think one has to look at the issue of addiction as one of these things. You create an awareness of addiction, you create ways of preventing addiction, but when people are addicted you have to actually deal with the issue as a public health issue. And those who exploit people who are addicted, such as criminal elements who sell drugs and people who have international cartels that sell drugs, have to have enforcement attached to them.
There is no one bullet in any sort of strategy. It has to be a series of things that you use. This is only one of them.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you, Dr. Fry.
Thank you, Mr. Morin.
Our next questioner from the Conservative Party is Mr. Seeback.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Fry, I'm trying to understand a couple of things that you've said to this committee. You seem to be suggesting that in a number of cases in the Criminal Code, for example, where it says “or otherwise” and in section 264 where it talks about “repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly”.... Do you have evidence that you can present to this committee that a crime has not been prosecuted or police haven't investigated because it says “or otherwise”, or in this way, communicating directly or indirectly?
In essence, why do you think we need this clarification? Is there a single case you know of where police said the Criminal Code is unclear, that the person is doing this bullying, but they're not investigating because it doesn't say “computer” in that section?
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
I can give you one case, the Amanda Todd case, which has now been dropped because they are unable to get the information about the person who was criminally harassing the late Amanda Todd, who had been harassed directly and indirectly.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
So how would this legislation enable police to get the information? I don't see anything that suggests that police can go to an ISP and compel them to give information. That's not what any of the sections you've amended here would do.
What additional powers does this give the police to investigate?
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
It gives the police the same powers they have to investigate any of these three offences that I'm bringing forward when a telephone is used, when cable is used—cable meaning television in the broad sense of cable—when a newspaper is being used, when a letter is being used, when a telegram is being used, when radio is being used. When any of those things are being used, the police have the powers. They do not have the powers to do this currently when a computer has been used, through social media and other means.
Sometimes it's easy. The ISP group may decide to come up and say they know who this is. But in many instances they do not have the ability that they have with those other modes of communication to get the information they need.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
On your suggestion of putting in, as you describe it, “a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers”, that's going to give them the powers to do that investigation?
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Well, it adds it to the current list that is there now of what is defined as communications means that they can investigate. It will add that specifically, so it will clarify what the word “other” means.
4:10 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
I think there's a difference between “clarify” and “give new powers”. You seem to suggest that this is going to give new powers.
I find it hard to believe that when a police officer who's investigating someone for engaging in an extreme form of bullying asks for information, an ISP is going to say, “Sorry, but the Criminal Code doesn't say 'computer' and I'm not going to give you any information.” That's what you're suggesting.
4:10 p.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
You may find that hard to believe, sir, but in fact it does happen, and that's why the police can't use this.
I'm not saying this is going to give powers to the police. I'm saying that this levels the playing field with regard to communications and means of communications, i.e., with every other thing listed, but with computers left out.
Computers and the digital age are new since the Criminal Code was written, just as my colleague has mentioned that it says “he” in every area and we may need to say “he and she”, if we want to look at that area. I'm just saying that what we're trying to do here is clarify what the term “other” means.
4:15 p.m.
Conservative
Kyle Seeback Conservative Brampton West, ON
Actually, “computer” is defined in the Criminal Code. Section 342.1 talks about “a computer system” and gives a number of definitions. Why didn't you use that definition in the Criminal Code, which has been established by case law and is understood? Why did you make up your own? It creates inconsistency in the Criminal Code.