Justice Committee on Feb. 27th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Mr. Wilks.

[David Wilks, Conservative, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Chair, I want to echo what Mr. Seeback said and take it one step further.

In 1995 I was part of the first ever restorative justice system that was created in Canada, in Sparwood, British Columbia. It was created by Sergeant Jake Bouwman and a local lawyer by the name of Glen Purdy.

It had great results, especially dealing with the fact that most of the people we are talking about are young offenders. Although they fall within the Criminal Code, they fall within the Young Offenders Act or whatever it is called now.... As a result of that, we had to find a better way to deal with young offenders, a more appropriate way.

Restorative justice was and continues to be today one of the better forms of dealing with it, because it forces not only the victim but the accuser of said crime to face each other and deal with each other. In that light, that is why I don't feel that this particular bill that has come before us, from Ms. Fry, would create anything better than what we already have. It's there. It's a matter of utilizing what we already have.

Restorative justice is just one tool that could be greatly utilized but isn't, in my opinion. Those are my thoughts.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Madame Boivin.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

First, I would like to speak to Mr. Cotler. You are asking that we suspend everything in order to see whether we can improve matters and find a solution. That is tempting because we rarely see an outstretched hand. I believe this is the first time we have been in this situation and have wondered what it means in reference to a bill.

That being said, there is still one problem. I have looked at this from all possible angles, and I do not see how we can manage to stay within the scope of the bill. In fact, this merely amounts to verbiage. These are merely words that already exist.

It was also striking to hear Dr. Fry constantly stop before the word "otherwise" during her testimony. However, the word "otherwise" appears in the section, which means there could be other ways of viewing the matter. She was right in saying that three other types of words could be added to the section, if we consider section 264 of the Criminal Code, for example. However, the word "otherwise" will still be there because the purpose of her bill was not to remove that word, which makes it possible to adjust over time.

The only thing I could see was if we really wanted to try to send a message. I want it to be clear that I am not necessarily reluctant to do so. I am very much aware of the fact that witnesses talked to us about bullying and cyberbullying and told us that prevention, discussion and education are extremely important when dealing with young people, far more so than other themes. I understood all that.

Sometimes, however, you have to be able to tell the truth and to say that this is unacceptable behaviour. In fact, it is worse: it is criminal behaviour. I do not feel that your bill will change that. Perhaps it would have been preferable for it to do what was done with regard to spousal abuse. A clause was drafted and is now included in sentencing measures. Perhaps that is where it should have been included. Perhaps that is what should have been done, but it is not up to me to change her bill.

Now I turn to Mr. Goguen. You have introduced a motion. Perhaps it would be a good idea to have it in writing. Standing Order 97.1(1) reads as follows:

97.1 (1) A standing, special or legislative committee to which a Private Member's public bill has been referred shall in every case, within sixty sitting days from the date of the bill's reference to the committee, either report the bill to the House with or without amendment or present to the House a report containing a recommendation not to proceed further with the bill and giving the reasons therefor or requesting a single extension of thirty sitting days to consider the bill, and giving the reasons therefor.

Once again, the devil is in the details.

Before deciding whether to support your motion, I would like to have the details that will accompany it. If there is a sentence in those details that indicates that we are talking about temporary behaviour and that it is not criminal, I will not be able to support it. It is criminal behaviour, but it would be treated differently and might not be criminalized within the meaning of the Criminal Code.

It is in English only. Honestly, Mr. Goguen can do better than that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

I understood that in French. That was good.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

It's one of our saints, okay?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

As chair, I would like to state that if any member is bringing a motion in advance—obviously if it's on the fly you aren't going to have it—if it's to be written out, I would like it both in English and French, with copies for every member. That's only fair, and that's the way it should be.

You didn't make this up sitting here. For all members, in the future I would ask you to do that. It makes the committee operate more smoothly.

Thank you very much.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I believe it is also a matter of compliance with the rules respecting bilingualism in the House. I noticed that the words I did not like were not in the text of your motion. This is different.

This answers all my questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you.

Mr. Jacob.

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

I would like to support what Mr. Morin said.

Beyond the amendments made to the Criminal Code by this bill, it would be very important to adopt a national anti-bullying strategy to provide our communities with the resources and programs to actually attack the causes of bullying through prevention, rehabilitation and so on. We must invest more in education, health and social services.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much, Mr. Jacob.

Mr. Cotler.

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Monsieur Morin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to read the motion for my unilingual francophone colleagues. I believe they would like to have the simultaneous interpretation so that they can clearly understand the motion.

Mr. Chair, I would like to move a motion.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

You can read it slowly.

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

All right.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Dany, do you have a copy of your motion? It could be submitted to the translators, who could then translate it.

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

That is a good idea.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

The Conservatives are short of money.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Monsieur Morin.

[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;

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

There's one thing you need to add, which is what I was going to add, that the chair will present this report to the House.

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

Yes, “and that the Chair will present this report to the House.”

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

That's just to be legal.

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

Thank you very much.

Have all my unilingual francophone colleagues understood?