Justice Committee on May 13th, 2014

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

Absolutely.

[Glenford Canning]

It's not like they have time to go snooping on people in their neighbourhood. They're police officers. We have to have a level of trust and respect that they're going to be appropriately using the tools they have to do their jobs.

My prediction is that we're not going to see this bill result in a massive invasion of privacy. I don't believe that is what it's for, and I believe I have enough trust in the people you're going to hand this to that they're going to use it appropriately. I do know that there's a level of bureaucracy in Canada where a lot of privacy things have come up lately—one million requests last year from telecom companies, and things like that. It's not like this bill is going to add this big problem of privacy.

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

That's not your fear.

The record should reflect that Ms. Reda is nodding her head in agreement. The transcript doesn't pick that up.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much.

Our next questioner, from the New Democratic Party, is Mr. Chisholm. I'll give you the same time that Mr. Dechert had.

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

Thanks very much.

I want to thank the witnesses very much for coming and telling us their stories.

First of all, I want to acknowledge the losses of all three you, Carol, Allan and Glen, and to offer my condolences to you and your families. I want to thank all of you, not just for today but for the days and weeks and months and years you've been telling your stories to try to make change, to try to ensure that your memories and the memories of those you've lost are shared by others, and to try to ensure that we learn from what has happened to you. That takes a tremendous amount of courage, as has been suggested before.

I represent Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, where Rehtaeh lived and where Leah now lives. Leah was here about a year ago with the Premier of the Province of Nova Scotia and the Minister of Justice, and we talked about how—and Glen mentioned this—the Province of Nova Scotia was finally forced to respond and put in place a number of initiatives. A lot of work has been done to coordinate the different agencies that are involved—mental health services, victim services, justice, police efforts, and so on.

What can we do at the federal level in this whole picture, besides education?

They talked to us about changing the Criminal Code so that people are held accountable, so that there are consequences to the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. We in the NDP, in the official opposition, made a commitment then to do that, and, as you know, we introduced a private member's bill. I don't, by any stretch of the imagination, suggest it was perfect. It was two pages long, and it was pretty straightforward. It was meant to establish clearly the consequences of non-consensual distribution of intimate images and to change the Criminal Code where it was meant to be changed in order to make sure there were consequences.

Now we have a bill that has similar provisions. I'm sure the provisions are probably better as they relate to the cyberbullying aspect of it, but there are four pages, and then there are another 70 pages that deal with other matters. My concern has been that if we don't get it all right—these issues of privacy are very complicated—the law will end up getting struck down. It will end up getting tied up in the courts, and we will have failed in the attempt to reach our goal, which is to hold people to account and to ensure there are consequences for the non-consensual distribution of intimate images.

That's why, I would suggest to you, this business about anybody who's not 100% for this bill being somehow in favour of the perpetrators over the victims is absolute nonsense, and I am offended by it. I have to tell you that. I am offended by it. That's not why I'm here. That's not why I introduced my private member's bill in the first place. It was to stop it, and it was to do it clearly and simply and quickly, and we can do that. I want you to understand that is our intention.

We raise questions and we hear from people because the other part of this bill is complicated. I am concerned, because I believe this to be true—that it will end up causing problems, and we won't achieve the goal we are determined to deal with, which you have all worked so hard to try to get us to respond to.

I want you to understand that because we're committed to do that. We will continue to be committed to do that whatever happens with Bill C-13. I want to acknowledge and honour the commitment that you've made to this issue and thank you for all of your work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

There's some more time.

Madam Boivin, do you want to take some of that time?

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Sure. I always like to talk after Robert. I also almost jumped out of respect because I so feel for you guys that I understand that anybody would raise any objection to Bill C-13...but not the part on the distribution of images. I'm even a bit against the title because it hints at something that is not there, because it's not the cyberbullying bill like it's called. It's really the anti-distribution of intimate images. That would have been more proper as a bill because that's what it...and plus the tools for police and which tools to give.

I don't think anybody around this table wants to pass too much time on protecting necessarily the cyberbullies, but we do want to make sure that the warrants that will be granted, issued, are legal and, as Robert just said more eloquently than I did before, that they will not be struck down because we all know how long it takes in court.

Some of you, such as you, Ms. Reda, have seen the justice system. It's not the fastest thing in the world and it's very highly emotional for victims who go in front of it. So imagine if you pass one, two, three years in front of the system just to see the warrant being struck down and all the proof that was with it struck down. That's what we're trying to avoid. So it's not protecting the cyberbullies. It's making sure that in our framework we have a Charter of Rights, we have some laws that have to be applied, we have some jurisprudence, and everything fits together.

That's why again I repeat, sadly, we have to take so much time on the second part to give the tools. We all agree it needs more tools because I often hear my esteemed colleagues from the Conservative Party saying we need to give the tools to policemen. Of course, we need to give them tools that are more in sync with the 2014 tools available. Yes, they have to be able to do things, but when we know that we can obtain a warrant by a phone call now, there are judges accessible so fast, a justice of the peace, if you have reasonable grounds and you know something has been committed....

You said something, Mr. Canning, that hit me. You said that no laws will give competence, or whatever. It's true because you can give the best of tools and if they're not applied there's nothing that will improve anyway.

So I think it's important to know, especially from you because I think Bill C-13 is all there because of you. It's sad that it took that, it took the death of kids, to make politicians realize that we needed to modernize certain aspects of the Criminal Code in this day and age, because everybody has been aware of bullying and all its forms for a long time. So it takes a will and sometimes it takes some dramatic events to make things move. So be it, but we still have to do it well.

That's all I want to say. I will never take kindly to those asking questions if it is seen that we are not protecting who has to be protected. We're just trying to do the best job and that's why my first message was that hopefully we can all work together. For the people who are more into police, we have a policeman at the table, an ex-policeman at the table. We have people with all types of backgrounds and we'll really do our best to put the best tools in the hands of the enforcers to make sure that our kids are safe as well as the whole population, because it's not a bill just about kids. It's about everybody.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much. Thank you for that.

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

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

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

It's interesting. I'm retired from the RCMP and I've always struggled with this book, because it's the book we have to follow, whether we like it or not. The problem is that the evolution of crime over, certainly, the last 10 years has gone lightning speed compared to the evolution of this book, which hasn't changed, really, since about 1986.

I hear everyone here, and I want to ask one specific question at the end, but I wanted to give some context as to why I believe the bill has to involve the changing of the privacy laws as well. Right now, as it sits in the Criminal Code, we don't identify anything by “computer data”—absolutely nothing. It's not there. It says electronic data, it says a lot of things, but it doesn't say “computer data”. So the police look at it and go, “I don't know if I can do that, and I don't want to create bad case law by something that may or may not be interpreted by a judge as something I could or couldn't do”. This clearly defines it, and provides clear definition for the police as to what they can or cannot do.

One of the things they will be able to do if and when this law is passed is to create the clear understanding with regard to the preservation of data prior to a warrant, because right now, there's nothing. It's carte blanche. That's why it's difficult sometimes for the police to do things on Facebook or Twitter or Instagram, because they're trying to figure out if they can do it legally. Morally, they can do it; of course they can. But they have to get it past a judge.

That's one of the first things I wanted to say, because I think this provides a great opportunity to get it right and move forward.

There are things in this bill that should be better, in my opinion. Having used a lot of the Criminal Code, especially with regard to wiretaps, I can tell you, as an author to an authorization for a wiretap, for anyone in this room who thinks it's “wham, bam, done!”, it don't happen that way. It takes months, if not years of investigation to eliminate every other possible way of doing the investigation before you go to the ultimate, which is a wiretap, because that's the ultimate invasion of someone's privacy. The police take it very seriously, because ultimately, they don't want to screw the investigation up. This provides them with the opportunity to preserve data that isn't there right now.

There are a couple of things that I think need to be better recognized in this bill, which I'll bring forward. People don't even recognize that upon completion of receiving computer data, you must within 60 days notify every person who has been intercepted, along with the entire other part of the investigation that you're moving forward, because the courts have said you have to have the accused in front of the courts within a certain time; you must disclose all of the data within a certain time. You have to do a whole bunch of things, and you also have to notify everyone within 60 days—just about impossible.

So we're going to try to get it right.

The one question I have, Mr. Chair, to each of the witnesses is how do we better educate police officers at the beginning of their training? Because that seems to be where we haven't caught up. The police just say, well, this is what I got. We need to educate them and say, listen, there are other things that you can do to make sure that the Alycha Redas, the Amanda Todds, and the Rehtaeh Parsons of the world know that we have compassion, because we do. We don't want anything to happen to anyone. That's the last thing we want, but we need to educate better.

What do you say to that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

If you could be relatively succinct it would be helpful.

Thank you

[Carol Todd]

It's really funny because in Amanda's case, after a year of being harassed online by who we think is the person in the Netherlands, after the second or third report that I made to the RCMP and nothing seemed to be done, my daughter said she was giving up because nothing was being done, and then she started to go back into that shell.

I agree that we need more training for police officers and law enforcement officers—the direct line. How we're going to do that, I have no clue. That's not my job, but I agree that needs to be done and they need to show the empathy, care, and compassion when they get the reports out, because the victims, the targeted people are made to feel like crap. I would use other, more explicit words, but I can't.

You talk about Cybertip, and I had a conversation with the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, and they did get the reports about Amanda. They feel so bad that they couldn't do more for her at the time. They feel more could have been done, but it wasn't.

I know right after Amanda died, I saw Dany Morin on TV in October of 2012. I believe he introduced a private member's bill. I don't know all the details. I was in a shock fog at that time. It was defeated. It upset me that it got defeated because that was the first real thing I'd heard that something was hopefully going to be done.

Six months later, when I found out that Rehtaeh died, it killed me. It shocked me, because after that got defeated back in the fall of 2012, we heard no more about cyber-harassment or cyberbullying. If that conversation had continued, Rehtaeh might be here.

After Rehtaeh died, all of sudden in Nova Scotia, there's a cyberbullying act. The Province of Nova Scotia talked tonnes and tonnes about what happened and they passed a bill, and the Province of B.C. is doing different things. I felt my daughter's death was forgotten for a while, and it took another death to revive it. As a mother, that was horrible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you very much, Ms. Todd.

We're going to have to move on. I'm sorry, we won't be able to hear from everyone.

So that was seven minutes and 40 seconds. Just so my colleagues aren't criticizing the chair, I'm treating everyone fairly. If you want answers from the witnesses, be succinct in your questions, please. Thank you very much.

[Allan Hubley]

If there's something being said around here that we're not getting a chance to respond to, will we have an opportunity at the end?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Sir, my suggestion is to stick your hand up, so I know you have an answer. You can even pretend you're a politician. If you're asked a question and you want to answer something else, feel free to do so. It's your time.

Monsieur Morin.

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

Thank you.

Thank you so much, everyone, for being here today. All of your testimony has touched my heart once again.

I'd like to thank Ève. I'm not a sitting member of this committee, but she knows how deeply I care about this issue.

This is why, as Carol mentioned, when I was elected to Parliament in 2011, Steve and I, in my office, spent a full year investigating this issue. We wanted to put forward the bill that was introduced in the House in May of 2012; but with the different rules, as you all know, we were only able to debate it in the fall. I'm not going to complain about the fact that my national strategy on bullying prevention was defeated in the fall of 2012. Those who voted against it will have to answer for that.

I and my other NDP colleagues fully approve of the new rules in Bill C-13 about the distribution of intimate images without consent. However, my fear is that with a cyberbullying bill, the government will believe that after Bill C-13 is passed, the federal government will have done what it needed to do regarding cyberbullying.

Mr. Hubley, tell me if I'm wrong here, but in your son Jamie's case, there was no sharing of intimate pictures. But it was still cyberbullying that he experienced for so many months. I'm wondering if you can tell me a little bit more about what you think the federal government could do—laws or whatever else—that touch on other types of cyberbullying. It could be text messages full of hatred or name-calling. It could be a Facebook group that is created to humiliate an individual but where there are no intimate images being shared on that Facebook group, or it could be a fake social media profile where false rumours are being spread but there are no intimate images. All of those types of acts are cyberbullying.

Can you tell me a little bit more about what else the government should do about cyberbullying that does not involve intimate pictures being shared?

[Allan Hubley]

Those are all great examples.

In response, I'd like to go back to something that Glen mentioned. One of the things the government could do here is to help hold the providers of social media more accountable. Now, that could be that they have to watch what's happening on their sites a little better, or that when keywords pop up they're blocked. We see on some websites that they can do that quickly.

Maybe, if they're going to offer the service, they should be contributing to funds to pay for the front-line services that are required to deal with the fallout of these things, such as the Red Cross program or things like that. If this is a billion-dollar industry, maybe they would be willing to contribute to some of these services. Here in Ottawa we have the Youth Services Bureau, which does amazing work with young people. So there is a lot that could be done there.

You, as parliamentarians, have the clout to go to these providers and start that discussion with them. They're not responding to me when I say things to them, that they need to get control of what's going on on their sites, but they probably will respond to you.

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

I have an idea that perhaps you can all comment on. My colleague Mr. Goguen mentioned Cybertip.ca, which is sponsored by the federal government, where people can denounce or report sexual exploitation acts happening.

Do you think something similar regarding bullying could be implemented? For example, a teenage boy being cyberbullied could go on this website, copy and paste the link of their cyberintimidation, or send a screen capture of the cyberbullying happening. Then some police force—the RCMP, I don't know—can investigate to see if the claim is valid. If it is valid, they can work with the Internet service provider to track down the bully and then contact the owner of the IP address. With kids bullying kids, the owner of the IP address will likely be the parents; they will receive the email.

Do you think something similar could be interesting—i.e., for parents to play a role in the lives of their children, especially if their child might be the bully?

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Who would you like to answer that question, Mr. Morin?

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

Ms. Reda wants to speak.

[Alycha Reda]

For the last eight years, actually, I have been teaching children about Cybertip.ca, the centre for protection against bullying kids online, because I was a victim who the OPP did a video of, so I know all about that, and that's been around for years.

Recently I have been going into high schools, and I talk with kids about cyberbullying as well as how to report. We have a letter builder that can be found on Cybertip.ca. You can talk about the abuse, and you can talk about the bully. It's a breakdown, so it makes it easier for children. Then you can anonymously give that to your teacher, to your principal, or to your parents. It's just a little letter: fold it, put it in an envelope, and hand it to them. It's their job to figure it out, to bring it forward to the police. Children don't know what to do.

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

Well, some kids nowadays are pretty tech-savvy, so I believe they could use an Internet platform to report cyberbullying...for those who can.

[Alycha Reda]

We do. It's there. People just don't know where it is.

There are people like Rob Nickel, a 14-year veteran of the OPP who has dealt with this and who hunts down child predators, etc. He has been seen on Dr. Phil and the Oprah show. He's from Canada. He has programs so that parents can put this software on their computer and information will be sent to their mobile device or to their email, and it will talk about if the kids are swearing, if they're cyberbullying.... There are programs out there; it's just whether or not the government wants to fully fund them.

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

That's an interesting approach.

The other witnesses...?

[Glenford Canning]

We dealt with Facebook a little bit after Rehtaeh died. Someone set up a website, a Facebook profile page called “Rehtaeh Dead Parsons”. It had images taken from her Facebook account where they bugged her eyes out and they put belts around her neck like she was hanging. I reported this to Facebook as soon as I became aware of it. I heard back from them within 24 hours. I think that was their response time. They told me that the page doesn't violate their community standards.

I don't think we can rely on these companies to do the right thing. I think they definitely need a nudge, which is what my hope would be, to try to force them a little bit and to say, “Hey, if this isn't violating your community standards, something like this, then you don't have any community standards and perhaps you have no business being a part of our community.”

There are alternatives to Facebook. I know that you hit people where it counts. You hit them right in the wallet. That's what matters. A man in Vietnam used Rehtaeh Parsons' picture on an ad, “Meet Single Ladies in Canada”. It was all over the news, but the thing is, it was instant that Facebook had that down, because money was involved, and because people started targeting who was advertising on Facebook and asking, “Hey, are you okay with this?” or “Citibank, are you okay that your ad appears alongside 'Rehtaeh Dead Parsons?”

That's where you hit Facebook. It hit them real hard. It hit them right in the wallet, you know, but it took that to do it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Thank you for that.

I believe we are going to have Facebook come in to see us as a witness in the next couple of weeks.

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