Justice Committee on Feb. 25th, 2013

[Cathryn Palmer]

Yes. I'd like to re-emphasize that we agree that tougher legislation alone is not a cyberbullying strategy but is one part of a broader anti-bullying strategy that is needed, and we stand alongside the numerous witnesses who appeared before that Senate committee and supported amendments to the Criminal Code. We believe the harassment sections currently do not effectively include electronic communication. We also recognize that the committee report did recommend the promotion of restorative justice as a key component of any coordinated strategy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Professor Shariff, do you have anything to add?

[Prof. Shaheen Shariff]

Yes. I looked at restorative justice about 10 years ago. I haven't looked at it recently, but one of the concerns was the challenge in getting all the parties together for restorative justice.

There was also the aboriginal form of circle sentencing. That wasn't proposed in the Senate report, but that's a related type of approach.

One of the issues was bringing the parents and other people to the table. Other than that, I would support it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you.

Mr. Wilks, you have a minute and a half.

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

Thank you very much, Chair. I'll be very quick. I have one question for Ms. Craig and one for our witness from Edmonton.

You mentioned a universal definition in your speech. It seems to me that we as a society have failed to some degree. If we think about it from the perspective of raising a child, we don't give them the bike and then just tell them to go and ride it, right? We're with them the whole time. When they start to walk or crawl, we don't just say, “Well, fill your boots, and we'll see what happens first.” We're with them.

But all of a sudden, computers came along in the 1990s or 2000s, and we said, “Here, have a computer and we won't monitor you. We'll just let it go.” That's basically what we've done. I'm curious about what your thoughts are on a universal definition.

Then quickly to our witness from Edmonton with regard to tools that police need, as a retired police officer, I don't know if these amendments do anything for the police with regard to new tools. I would suggest that somewhere down the road the responsibility will be handed to the police, and at some point in time the general public will feel that the police have failed, because they will have been unable to do what they needed to do in the Criminal Code.... It goes beyond that. I'd like to hear your answer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you for that.

I'll give each of you 30 seconds to answer those questions.

[Prof. Wendy Craig]

Okay. I'll just say two things.

You're absolutely correct, in that we spend a lot of time street-proofing our kids, but we don't spend any time telling our kids, working with our kids, or socializing our children to be safe online and to do it appropriately. How many times do we tell our children to say “please” and “thank you”? And with that, now you know how old my children are.

We need to work hard to teach them and provide them with that skill. That's why this is a public education campaign that respects development.

The second piece that I want to add is that we absolutely need the universal definition, because if we're going to legalize it or put it into things, we need to know what the behaviour is that we're charging and we need to know what are the boundaries around that behaviour. It's absolutely essential that we have it. I would argue that cyberbullying is bullying in a different context, and that if we can define “bullying”, we can define that it can happen in all of these places.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Okay.

Ms. Palmer, you have the second question.

[Cathryn Palmer]

Thank you.

I understand the point the member has made. I think that applies often to many of the responsibilities that the services across the country often feel are perhaps downloaded upon them. They then are expected to deal with something that is really a very difficult and complex social problem.

Again, I will just re-emphasize that our support of this legislation is with the understanding that it is a piece of what needs to be a very broad and multi-faceted strategy, one that we could see being a tool for the police across the country.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Wilks.

The next questioner is Mr. Casey from the Liberal Party for five minutes.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, thank you to Mr. Goguen for his question, and to each of you for your comments with respect to restorative justice. In this era of minimum mandatory sentences, tough on crime legislation, and multiple changes to the Criminal Code to create new offences, to hear anyone talk about restorative justice on Parliament Hill is refreshing. Thanks to all of you for that.

My question comes back to the last point made by Ms. Palmer, and it was also made by Dr. Fry when she testified.

It's for you, Professor Shariff, although I'd be interested in Professor Craig's comments as well.

Both of them have talked about the fact that this bill is but one tool, and that there is a need for an overall, more comprehensive strategy. Yet, if I understood your testimony correctly, Professor Shariff, you didn't see much value in the bill, if I have it correctly.

I'm asking you specifically to respond to what Ms. Palmer and what Dr. Fry have said, that there's no good reason to delay this particular tool while waiting for something more comprehensive.

[Prof. Shaheen Shariff]

I guess I would say that a lot of the criminal aspects of cyberbullying are already covered under the current code, whether it's online or offline. Harassment is harassment, whether it's online or offline. Extortion is extortion, online or offline.

If we are going to put in a bill, I would agree with the Conservative gentleman who was asking Ms. Fry questions or discussing the inconsistency in the bill. The proposed amendments are only covering certain aspects of cyberbullying.

I really don't think it would make a difference. I understand the need for a tool. The only purpose it would serve at this point is to give some comfort to the public that something is being done, but there have been so many band-aid measures. Do we really need piecemeal band-aid measures? Once that's done, it leaves the impression that we've done what we can, but we really need to study this in much more depth and come up with ways to look at it.

I don't know if I have more time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

You have two more minutes.

Ms. Craig, do you want to comment?

[Prof. Wendy Craig]

I'll add that I think what this bill is trying to do is be part of the package, and I think it would be problematic if it sat on its own in that package, because what does it say to us about the principles? I think the thing that makes it problematic is this recognition of what I would call a developmental perspective, the meaning of the behaviour to children as they age, and the intention they have when they engage in these behaviours throughout....

My concern is that if we just put this one piece in place, we're putting in a punishment, we're putting in something that can forever affect children's and youths' lives. This bill is not child and youth friendly, in the sense that it doesn't put in the developmental supports they need in order to change and be different, but in fact it's going to put in blocks to their lives' development that are actually going to negatively impact the development.

This bill, in the context of the educative measures to support the children in the context of a developmental perspective that their understanding of intention to harm, their understanding of the behaviour, changes with age, is helpful in the context of providing police with the tools they need to support the youth when they are working so effectively in the communities, when they are looking to identify that behaviour.

I think we need to put it in as one piece of a package, because as it stands alone, it's probably not going to make a huge difference, and in fact it's going to have a negative effect on our youth.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Mr. Casey, that is your time. I'm sorry. Thank you very much.

Our next questioner is Mr. Armstrong from the Conservative Party.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Unlike the chair, I have great respect for professors. I was an assistant professor myself.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

You didn't see my marks. You'd understand why.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

My background is in education. I have 18 years as a public school educator. I've taught every grade from fourth grade to post-doc studies. I've been through it. I've seen a lot of terrible things that children can do to each other.

I agree with a lot of the testimony here today. I don't think this piece of legislation is going to make a huge difference, because most of it is in the code already.

I'm going to ask some specific questions. I'm going to offer some ideas that might make a difference for young people in particular who are facing this, because this is a terrible social problem we're facing now.

Professor Shariff, you talked about an Austrian study that said when children are reporting why they do this, they say there are just two motivators: anger and fun. I know that's what kids would say because that's how they would articulate it, but I believe all bullying, whether cyberbullying, physical bullying, intimidation, or exclusion, is all based on power. I think power is the really key word. Would you both agree with that?

[Prof. Shaheen Shariff]

Yes.

[Prof. Wendy Craig]

Yes.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

To have power, that is where you can have the intent to hurt or harm. The problem we have sometimes with young people is they don't realize the power they have.

For example, as I just said to the chair...I made a joke. I can do that with him; he's a friend of mine. I might say the same type of thing to someone who's not quite as good a friend and they might take that as something that was really hurtful, even though I didn't mean to hurt him or the other friend.

A lot of it has to do with the perception of the victim as much as it has to do with the intent of the person who's being accused of bullying. Would you agree? Are those some accurate statements?

Thank you. They're nodding, just for the record.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Within a minute you have to say yes or no.

[Prof. Shaheen Shariff]

Yes.