Bill C-273 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cyberbullying)

This enactment amends the Criminal Code in order to clarify that cyberbullying is an offence.

Justice and Human Rights

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

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

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

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

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

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Is there anything else to this item? No.

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

(Motion as amended agreed to)

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

The meeting is adjourned.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

parliamentary review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I move:

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

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

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

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

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

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

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

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

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

With that, I will suspend for two minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Paul Taillefer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bill Belsey]

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

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

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

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

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

I hope that addresses your question to some degree.