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

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the member a bit about the overreaching to which he referred.

Prior to Bill C-13's coming into effect, the evidentiary standard for obtaining a warrant for electronic records in many cases was “reasonable and probable grounds to believe” the commission of an offence. That evidentiary standard is being lowered from “reasonable and probable grounds to believe” to “reasonable suspicion”. In order to be able to use the access to information laws to get records from a minister's office, the standard is “reasonable and probable grounds” to believe that the records are within the control of the office.

My question for the member is this: does he believe that ordinary Canadians who have electronic records in the possession of third parties should have those records more easily accessed than those that are in ministers' offices?

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and finish my intervention on Bill C-13 which is an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act, and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act.

I want to talk for a couple of moments about some of what I said yesterday.

Bill C-13 was introduced with some considerable fanfare. Provisions in it would close the gap in the Criminal Code to make the non-consensual distribution of intimate images an offence and would deal with the definition of malicious intent.

This is a topic that the official opposition tried to deal with when we brought in a private member's bill, Bill C-540, in the spring, and subsequently encouraged the government at every opportunity to recognize the tragedies that were taking place out there as people of all ages, mostly women, had acts of violence being committed upon them. Whether it is called revenge porn or otherwise, people—sometimes partners, sometimes others—with malicious intent and with violent intent were distributing intimate images of those individuals.

I spoke to a situation in my riding involving 17-year-old Rehtaeh Parsons, who took her own life as a result of the situation she was involved in. She was allegedly raped, and the images of that were subsequently transmitted widely on the Internet.

I want to speak to that for a second. That young woman took her life because she believed that the worldwide distribution of those intimate images of her by her friends, by members of her community, and by others had sufficiently destroyed her reputation that she felt she had no way out.

Frankly, it is intolerable that the system was unable to support her. Her community, her schools, and the institutions and support services of the greater community of the Halifax regional municipality were unable to support her. As a result of that, the Province of Nova Scotia moved to make some changes, and I will speak to that in a moment.

Suffice it to say that the bill is extremely important for what it does in this regard. As I said yesterday, it is my belief and the belief of many on this side that had the government done what we tried to do with Bill C-540, which was to bring in a piece of legislation that was directly targeted toward the act of cyberbullying, then it would be unanimously approved by members of the House. We would move it to committee. We would hear from families, from people affected, and from experts, and we would deal with the matter and change the law. We would get it enacted and change it.

What the government has decided to do is to tie questions about the extension of its powers of surveillance to the bill. Many people, both in this country and beyond, have indicated that they have some concerns with that, and likely it will result in extensive discussion and conversation.

I want to add that dealing with bullying and cyberbullying means much more than just changing the law. We need to engage in national strategies. We need to provide supports. Whether through education or through health services, mental health and otherwise, we need to make sure that there is a plan, that there is a strategy for educating and supporting people to make sure not only that people realize that bullying and cyberbullying are wrong but that the supports are there for the victim.

We will be supporting this bill moving forward to second reading, but I urge the government to consider our motion to split the bill.

The House resumed from November 27 consideration of the motion that Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the opposition House leader with regard to the difficulties and uncertainty of scheduling when we are not using the scheduling devices that are available to us under the Standing Orders. I am certain that he will find that he is able to cope with that, but perhaps I will take his advice and his concern about the lack of proper scheduling here under consideration and see if there is an opportunity to please him by once again returning to it.

Before I turn to the business of the House for the week ahead, let me congratulate those who won Monday's by-elections and will soon be joining us as members. Once returning officers have done their part of the job, which gives them the title upon the return of the writs of election, and after the new MPs have taken the oath, we will have their introductions here in this chamber, which will be a very special memory for them and for all of us.

Since this will probably be the last opportunity to use their names in the House, I will say that we on the Conservative benches are especially looking forward to welcoming Ted Falk and Larry Maguire. Larry proved to be an outstanding campaigner when it really counted. He overcame what expert pollsters said was a 29-point deficit in just 24 hours to win Brandon—Souris. This abrupt collapse of Liberal support must be troubling to the Liberal leader.

This afternoon, we will return to the second reading debate on Bill C-13, the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, and, again, tomorrow. If we have extra time, we will take up Bill C-12, the Drug-free Prisons Act, at second reading.

Bill C-13 will, as we heard from the Attorney General yesterday, ensure children are better protected against bullying, including cyberbullying, by making the distribution of intimate images without the consent of the person depicted a criminal offence.

Following on this morning’s report from the chair of the hard-working, productive and orderly Standing Committee on Finance, we will consider Bill C-4, the Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2, at report stage, and hopefully third reading, on Monday and Tuesday.

This bill would provide support for job creators, for example, by extending and expanding the hiring credit for small businesses; and it would also close tax loopholes, combat tax evasion and respect taxpayer dollars. Overall, it is an important part of our government's ongoing agenda to place, as our top priorities, economic growth, job creation and long-term prosperity; indeed, they are priorities for most Canadians. I also will set aside Friday of next week for this important economic bill, if we need a third day to pass it.

Next Wednesday and Thursday, we will debate a bill to implement the devolution agreement reached with the Northwest Territories, for which the House adopted a ways and means motion this morning. If we can pass that bill at second reading before the end of Thursday, we would then return to the debates on Bill C-11, the priority hiring for injured veterans act, and Bill C-3, the safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act.

To help with the committees' forward planning, Monday, December 9, shall be the fifth and final allotted day of the autumn.

[William F. Pentney]

First, Mr. Casey, I appreciate your public words of thanks to the department. We're always pleased to assist parliamentarians from all parties in understanding the important legislation that we support the government in advancing.

I'll ask Mr. Piragoff to speak briefly to the question you've asked. I have no doubt that we'll have further opportunities to discuss all of the elements of Bill C-13 in the coming days.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To the officials, first, I want to publicly thank you and your department for being so helpful and cooperative in providing me with a departmental briefing during the prorogation period. I also want to thank your department for agreeing to a further briefing on Bill C-13. It greatly helps me in what I do. I thanked you privately, but I wanted to do that on the record as well.

I want to follow up on a conversation I had with the minister in the last couple of days. I'm back on Bill C-13 now, and I'm concerned about the immunity that's being afforded keepers of electronic records within the statute. What I heard in the House and in committee today is that this immunity is only applicable where the disclosure is lawful and it's under judicial oversight. If I understand what the minister said correctly, why do they need it?

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you very much, Madame Boivin. Thank you for your commentary yesterday, as well as Mr. Casey's.

As I said in the House, I do believe that this is an opportunity for parliamentarians to really come together and do what we do best in examining in a very rigorous way the provisions of Bill C-13. The other bill that you've referenced, the forthcoming victims bill of rights, will have very broad application, and I suspect, a transformative impact on our criminal justice system.

I've been around here and sat in opposition long enough to know that there are no blank cheques. No matter the enormity of the bill, there is always going to be a cost associated with its implementation, particularly something as broad and inclusive as the intended bill of rights for victims.

I want to come back to something that you said and referenced in the House yesterday, and that is the necessity to match this legislation and its intent with what police are going to be required to do. There will be an enormous burden placed on police and an enormous amount of new, sophisticated response required by police.

I suspect you're very familiar with the work of the Canadian Centre for Child Protection that works out of Winnipeg. They do a tremendous amount of the type of tracking that this bill envisages, and which the Privacy Commissioner is referencing. It's tantamount to that important balance that's required that you cannot allow police to be too invasive, and they can't do that under these provisions without judicial authorization. That is what I suspect many will be watching closely.

This is what differentiates this legislation from previous attempts. You're right that while the Privacy Commissioner endorses it generally, she still poses some very important questions. She recognizes that all of the aspects of privacy must be very much respected and that there is consequential legislation that also plays a role in the enforcement around cyber.... That is very much contemplated, and I know there will be further opportunity to hear from witnesses on this particular bill, but I appreciate your expression of cooperation on this.

The NDP, Mr. Chisholm from my province of Nova Scotia, brought forward a bill very much in line and in keeping with this intent. What was missing, and I say this respectfully, was the ability to empower the police to enforce the first part of this bill, which is the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. You need to have both parts working in concert to truly get the effect that we're after.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would first like to give notice of a motion, in light of what happened last week when, after the minister's presentation about the Supreme Court, we ended up sitting in camera to talk about the recommendations dealing with our part of Bill C-4. The notice of motion, which will be subsequently debated, reads as follows:

That the Committee may meet in camera only for the purpose of discussing: a. wages, salaries and other employee benefits; b. contracts and contract negotiations; c. labour relations and personnel matters; d. a draft report; e. briefings concerning national security; and That all votes taken in camera be recorded in the Minutes of Proceedings, including how each member voted when recorded votes are requested.

I will now turn to the minister.

When you read the article in The Globe and Mail this morning, you must have been happy to see that the Privacy Commissioner seemed to support Bill C-13. Clearly, it is not enough to read the title only. At any rate, this is what she said in the article:

She said the latest version appears to be an improvement and she doesn’t fault the government for linking lawful access and cyberbullying.

I would like to say that no one is blaming the government for linking the two. Mr. Minister, the issue that was raised yesterday is that one of the parts brings parliamentarians together whereas the other part has not yet been seriously studied in committee. That is why I am telling you once again that it is important to spend the required time on studying that part. The term “lawful access“ used in this article has to do with the tools that police officers have.

Also, you must not put words in the mouth of the Privacy Commissioner. In fact, she is right in saying that a more in-depth study might reveal something else. You are not going to claim this morning that she gave you carte blanche to do whatever you want.

That said, I am very interested in the victims bill of rights, an issue you have been talking about for a long time. The same goes for your predecessors, the Prime Minister and almost everyone in the Conservative cabinet. You talked about it earlier.

Making big media announcements on some issues is one of your government’s strengths. Sometimes, I would prefer it if you gave that money to the victims.

Has your department already started to think about the funds you are going to spend on advertising? Are you going to come back and ask us for additional funding for your department to promote your victims bill of rights all over the place? By the way, I really look forward to reading it.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

To be very honest with you, we are still calculating those figures because, with the passage of Bill C-13, I will require greater financial support because the activity is exploding, as you know. Police are going to be increasingly under pressure.

That may be a question perhaps better posed to Minister Blaney when he appears on this bill. It's difficult to calculate at this point just how much more police resources will be needed once they're given the ability to do further investigations online. I suspect it will be significant.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Central Nova, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Brown.

I must commend your community for being one of the more active ones when it comes to the outreach that goes on. You have an extraordinary police chief and department. As well, I consider the child advocacy work that is done in the community of Barrie to be among the best.

We'll come back to your question on cyberbullying. The way you've described it is quite accurate. There have been very sophisticated efforts to exploit the Internet. Particularly of concern is this issue of exploitation of children: cyberbullying and also child pornography. There was a recent bust, if you will, in Toronto that captured a number of people involved in a pornography ring. That came about because the police are becoming more adept at investigating online.

It's necessary to give the police greater tools, greater access, and greater ability to police the Internet, to fight online crime, to match this growing sophistication and proliferation of the Internet for nefarious means, for criminality, whether it be exploiting children, whether it be for financial gain, or whether it be blackmail. All of that is to say that, in my estimation, the Criminal Code has not evolved fast enough.

What we're attempting to do is to bring crime fighting into the 21st century in allowing police, with judicial oversight and authorization, to go where the crime is happening. To do that, we have to give assurances that we are respecting privacy, that we are affording police the ability, but at the same time putting in the oversights and the traditional necessity to seek a warrant. That is the fine balance we seek to achieve in Bill C-13.

You're right. I know, Mr. Brown, you are more proficient on the Internet than many. You're very active on social media.

I heard some statistics recently. In the 1990s there were 130 websites, total, in the world. Now they number in the billions. That is how quickly we have seen this expansion in the cyberworld.

Police are facing an uphill battle, quite frankly, in being able to track the activity. Giving them the necessary support with judicial authorization, in my view, is all about protecting people. It is a fundamental goal of Public Safety Canada. We're looking forward to your input and the input from experts to ensure we get that balance right.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for appearing this morning.

Last week you tabled legislation in the House of Commons that would make it illegal to distribute intimate images without consent and would empower the courts to remove those images from the Internet and also provide for reimbursement to victims and impose a maximum penalty of five years, among other measures.

You mentioned in your opening remarks the government's attempts to redress what has been perceived by many—by many in my constituency, I know—as an imbalance between the rights of victims and the rights of offenders.

How does that legislation, Bill C-13, fit into the government's legislative agenda with respect to standing up for victims? Perhaps you could tell us if you've consulted with victims and what they've told you about the bill.

[Peter MacKay, Conservative, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues.

I'm pleased to be with you this morning to answer questions regarding the items in supplementary estimates (B).

Mr. Chairman, as Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, I'm tasked with helping to ensure that our justice system continues to meet the needs of Canadians and that it can remain relevant, fair, and accessible.

Our government has been moving forward on several priority areas in criminal justice, in particular, so that Canadians can continue to be proud of our justice system and have confidence in its operation. We have toughened penalties against offenders, such as drug dealers, criminals who use firearms, and sexual predators who prey on children, the most vulnerable of our society.

We have also implemented measures to keep dangerous and violent offenders behind bars rather than under house arrest, and eliminated the practice of double time reduction in the sentencing of criminals for time served before trials, so-called sentence discounts.

Mr. Chair, this summer I also embarked on a series of consultations across the country, during which time I listened to Canadians from every province and territory speak about how the justice system could better serve victims of crime and what they would like to see in a federal victims bill of rights, which will be introduced in the coming days.

As we have discovered, unfortunately, victims in the justice system very often feel that they are being re-victimized by the system itself. They feel that the system is failing them and doesn't meet their needs, and we need to reverse that trend. Since 2006, our government has allocated more than $120 million specifically to victims, to give them a more effective voice in both our justice and correctional systems, through program initiatives delivered by the Department of Justice. This includes funding for new or enhanced child advocacy centres. I encourage all colleagues, if you have an opportunity, to visit a child advocacy centre in your region. They're doing amazing, compassionate work to help ease the trauma of a child caught up in the justice system. The centres help coordinate investigation, prosecution, and the treatment of child abuse, while helping abused children in a very important way.

We also need to continue to address victims' needs in other areas. I believe we have learned a great deal and we could help inform the legislation that our government intends to introduce, as I mentioned, to entrench the rights of victims into federal law.

Mr. Chair, another issue we have to tackle is cyberbullying, and we've taken steps in that direction as recently as yesterday. We have, unfortunately, seen that cyberbullying in its worst form can be life-threatening. We need a range of education, awareness, prevention, and enforcement activities to combat this scourge, including a stronger justice system response, and we intend to provide one. Governments at all levels have expedited a review of federal, provincial, and territorial law surrounding this issue, and I look forward to working with all of you to ensure that Bill C-13 is an effective criminal justice response that we can all support and move forward in an expedited way.

Chairman, colleagues, Canadians expect their justice system to keep them safe, first and foremost. Our government understands this expectation and is committed to protecting Canadians from individuals who pose a high risk to public safety. To that end, our government is introducing legislation to help protect Canadians from an accused who suffers from a mental disorder.

Our government has already introduced legislation to help protect Canadians from mentally disordered accused persons who have been found to be not criminally responsible and who pose a high risk to public safety. Our legislation will ensure that the safety of the public is the paramount consideration in the decision-making process.

There have been a number of misconceptions surrounding the intent of our legislation. I can assuredly tell members of this committee that we have no intention of increasing the negative stigma attached to those who suffer from a mental illness.

In fact, Mr. Chair, if I could pause here for a moment, the intention is in fact to designate those who are deemed high risk and to separate them from the rest who would have been given the designation of not criminally responsible. I believe if this is done properly, it will in fact reduce the stigma.

So, Mr. Chair, the Bill C-14, the not criminally responsible reform act, will only touch upon a small percentage of accused deemed high risk. In fact, those deemed within the entire criminal justice system not criminally responsible amount to less than 1%.

This effort will limit access for those high-risk accused in terms of escorted passes from mental health institutions. Again, for emphasis, this is what we're talking about: secure mental health facilities, not our classic jail system. This will be done in a way that will provide flexibility to provincial and territorial review boards tasked with reviewing these cases by giving them the option to extend reviews from the current two years up to a maximum of three years.

Our government also wants to ensure that our children are better protected against sexual exploitation.

Mr. Chair, we'll be introducing legislation soon that deals with the range of sexual offences, including child pornography, while ensuring that offenders receive tougher sentences when convicted of such offences.

Our government has always been committed to ensuring the integrity of our criminal justice system. We reiterated that commitment with the Speech from the Throne.

The items that the justice system has submitted to be tabled under supplementary estimates (B) for consideration today will further our work towards protecting Canadians and ensuring safer streets and communities, a goal we all share.

Chair, you will note that the Department of Justice's net increase is $10.94 million, including $996,000 in vote 1, and $9.8 million in vote 5.

One major area of expenditure is the renewal of the funding for the aboriginal justice strategy for fiscal year 2013-14. The aboriginal justice strategy is federally led and is an initiative that is cost-shared with the provinces and territories and supports community-based justice programs that help address the overrepresentation of aboriginal people in our criminal justice system. It provides funding to approximately 275 communities. It's a community-based program that reaches more than 800 aboriginal communities in all jurisdictions.

Chair, this is also an adjustment of $320,000 from the Department of Foreign Affairs after our Department of Justice eliminated a position in the Canadian embassy in Paris under the deficit reduction action plan.

In supplementary estimates (B) you should also note this is to indicate a reduction in vote 1 of approximately $374,000, which represents a reduction in travel costs by the department.

The estimates also include an overall reduction of $7,000, as a result of the creation of Shared Services Canada, which is in part related to eliminating the Justice position I mentioned in Paris.

To conclude, I want to thank all committee members for your diligence in examination of these figures and the estimates. I thank you for the important work that you do. I look forward to working with you on a number of very important initiatives that are making their way through this committee during the fall and into the new year.

The funding that the justice portfolio has received has brought results for Canadians. I assure you I'll do my utmost to ensure that these funds will continue to be spent wisely.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank you, and I look forward to your questions.

Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act

[Robert Chisholm, NDP, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to rise for what time I have to speak to Bill C-13.

Bill C-13 was introduced by the government to deal with the issue of cyberbullying. That is how it was lauded in the foyer of this chamber last week. That is primarily how it has been discussed by the minister and by the parliamentary secretary. They would suggest that it is focused entirely on dealing with the problem of cyberbullying.

My colleague, our justice critic, the member for Gatineau, has pointed out that the bill would deal with two very serious issues. It would deal with cyberbullying, but then it would also deal with the whole question of the invasive interception of signals and the power given to authorities, which it may in fact overreach. There have been concerns raised by privacy experts, by digital experts, that the government is being too cute by half, frankly, by trying to hide changes under the auspices of modernizing the Criminal Code and as changes to the Criminal Code simply to deal with the issue of cyberbullying.

We are very concerned about this. My colleague brought forward a very sensible motion, asking the government and other members of the House to split the bill. We have almost unanimous agreement in the House that the matter of cyberbullying needs to be addressed, and it needs to be addressed now. We all recognize the fact that there is a gap in the Criminal Code that needs to be closed. We need to focus on that. We need to target that. We can deal with it in a manner that is expeditious. We can have some debate in the House. We can send it to committee. We can hear from affected families and hear from experts, and undoubtedly come to some agreement to ensure that piece of legislation gets through and gets enacted into law. That can be done, as I said, very expeditiously.

However, the government has decided to be, I would say, less than transparent. It would not be a surprise for anyone to hear me accuse the government of being less than straightforward. It is introducing amendments that would simply complicate the matter and would create some problems.

I would suggest there is no question and it concerns me that the minister and the government have been extraordinarily disingenuous with this. It concerns me considerably, as a member of Parliament, as a politician, that the current government is frankly playing on the emotions of the families involved, of individuals in this country who want to see this matter addressed. Frankly, that is shameful. Even though I have been around the House for a while and this game for a while, nonetheless, it shocks me when I see acts of this kind.

Let me take members back to why it is that we are dealing with the question of cyberbullying and its problems.

It certainly came to my attention very quickly and very starkly last spring when 17-year-old Rehtaeh Parsons took her life. Her parents found her hanging in the bathroom of their house. This young woman was being bullied, was being harassed, was being cyberbullied as a result of an incident that had happened two years previously, where intimate images of her were being transmitted on the Internet without her consent and with malicious intent.

The evidence would suggest that those actions and the subsequent ganging up and piling on of individuals and the distribution of those images had the effect of that young woman feeling that she was completely without hope, and she took her own life.

The Government of Nova Scotia responded quickly, I would suggest. Back in 2011 there had been a cyberbullying task force chaired by Wayne MacKay. It had done some impressive work and made some important recommendations about cyberbullying. The task force had consulted with young people in all sectors throughout the province and had come up with a set of recommendations that were clearly there, at hand. The government immediately moved to put some of those into place and to develop a response to this tragedy. It was not just Rehtaeh and Amanda Todd. There was Jamie Hubley and there was Pam Murchison's young daughter in Nova Scotia who was bullied online and took her life.

This is far too often, and it is a situation that clearly has reached a stage where we finally recognize as a society that this is behaviour that has to stop. The government of this land has to bring forward changes to the Criminal Code, to the laws of the land, to ensure that people are held accountable, that people understand that there are consequences to these violent acts and that they will be held accountable.

Changing the laws is not all that needs to be done. There is much more that needs to be done and I will talk more about that later on or perhaps tomorrow, depending on how much time I have.

Last spring in late April or early May, Rehtaeh's mom came to Ottawa with her husband and met with the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister to talk to them about the issue, about the fact that they wanted to see some action. Not only was the Minister of Justice there but the premier was also with her, supporting the family. They wanted to talk to the Prime Minister and government about what was being done and what they thought the Government of Canada could do to help in the response, because it has to be a collaborative response at all different levels.

The same day, Rehtaeh's mom came and visited with the Leader of the Opposition, my colleague, the member for Gatineau, and me. We listened to them and to their anguish and their cry for action on behalf of the government to try to ensure that the tragic circumstances that led to the death of their daughter did not continue, and the Government of Canada did what it could.

We asked the justice minister of Nova Scotia and the Parsons what they felt needed to be done. They talked about a gap in the Criminal Code. The minister of justice specifically referred to section 162 and some changes that needed to occur in order to ensure the gap was closed. They also told us that the government had given some commitment to act and to move forward on some of these things. We made a commitment. We said to Leah, “What can we do, as the official opposition?” She told us that we could help push the government and asked us to do what we could to get the government to move forward to act on this, as they indicated they would. We all made that commitment to them that we would hold the government's feet to the fire and move it forward.

From that, we came up with a private member's bill, which was later tabled and I was very proud to sponsor, but it was from the official opposition. It was from our leader, our justice critic and other members who are concerned about this issue, all members of our caucus.

I tabled Bill C-540 on our behalf, which was a piece of legislation specifically targeted toward the issue of the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. It laid out penalties. It was targeted. It was not 60 pages. It was one, maybe two pages.

The reason I raise that is that we introduced it in the spring before the session ended and said to the government, “Here you go. This is what we think. We have consulted with experts on this issue and this is the best advice that we have received to deal with this issue. This is our recommendation on how to close that gap. We can do it and we can do it quickly.” We asked the government to move. That was before the House adjourned. We hoped that we would see some action in early September.

It did not matter to me if the government passed Bill C-540, sponsored by Robert Chisholm. That did not matter. I wanted the government to move forward on this issue. I was excited, even though the government decided to prorogue the House and delay everything and not come back until the middle of October rather than the middle of September, further delaying dealing with this issue. Nonetheless, it indicated in the throne speech that it was going to move forward on the issue. Again, I was encouraged by that.

Here we are another month later and the government, while it has moved forward with changes to the Criminal Code to deal with cyberbullying, could not help itself. It had to shove some more stuff into it. It had to try to hide some other things in behind those important provisions. It had to muck it up by dealing with issues that were contentious, coming from a piece of legislation that got driven out of the House last year, Bill C-30. It brought those provisions in through the back door and tried to hide them behind the cyberbullying provisions, thinking nobody would notice.

I can tell members that I am focused like a laser on trying to get these changes to the Criminal Code on cyberbullying through on behalf of not only Rehtaeh's family, the Todds and other families across this country, but anybody, any adult who has had violence committed upon them as a result of the non-consensual distribution of intimate images, sometimes known as revenge porn. I am focused like a laser to make sure that we get these changes through the House. However, I cannot tell members how much it sickens me that the government is bringing forward other changes that are making the bill extremely complicated. There will be people coming forward at committee who will be raising serious concerns about what else the bill does, other than with respect to cyberbullying.

If the government was serious it would have paid attention to the motion introduced by my colleague, the member for Gatineau, to split the bill, to separate sections 1 to 7 and section 26, I believe it was, into a bill on cyberbullying so we could deal with that and get it done. The remainder would be an issue the justice committee would deal with at some length.

It is an important and complicated issue. It is a matter that must be dealt with. It must be dealt with in a number of ways. I will talk about that tomorrow.

My time is almost up. I want to talk a bit about the whole question of bullying and how we need a national strategy like the one introduced by my colleague, the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord. We need that kind of commitment to deal with bullying and cyberbullying.

I hope that we can deal with this once and for all on behalf of the government. I look forward to continuing my remarks tomorrow.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary. We have two excellent parliamentary secretaries, as was mentioned. As chair of the justice and human rights committee, we have worked very well with all parties in putting aside the appropriate time to deal with the issues that have come in front of the committee. I assume that will continue in the future.

At the end of the day, Bill C-13, which is related to other legislation that our government has done in the past, is to help protect victims. It is not about the perpetrators. It is about the victims and what we as a government can do to help the security and safety of all Canadians and those who have, unfortunately, become victims.

Could the parliamentary secretary comment on why this is important legislation for victims of cyberbullying?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from Charlottetown.

Does this mean that the Liberals support clauses 1 to 7 of Bill C-13 regarding cyberbullying and the sharing of intimate images?