Debates of March 26th, 2013

CBC and Public Service Disclosure and Transparency Act

[Brent Rathgeber, Conservative, Edmonton—St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank all hon. members from all sides of the House who have participated in the debate regarding private member's Bill C-461.

Let me start by dispelling some of the concerns from my friends from the New Democratic Party. This bill is not an attack on the CBC. I wish they would assess the statute on its face rather than developing conspiracy theories as to why we are promoting it.

Section 68.1 of the current Access to Information Act has been determined by two courts, including the Federal Court of Appeal, to be unworkable. It creates an exclusion and then an exemption to that exclusion, which is a recipe for controversy. It led to expensive litigation and ultimately the Federal Court of Appeal and the federal trial court agreeing with the Information Commissioner that the Information Commissioner must be able to see the documents in order to determine whether disclosure is appropriate.

I listened intently to my friend from Halifax, who did actually read the bill before she spoke. She was curious as to why an exclusion is not the best way to protect the independent broadcaster. The reason is quite clear. It is section 36 of the Access to Information Act that sets out the powers of the Information Commissioner, and they are broad. She may summon and enforce the appearance of persons. She may receive affidavits, take evidence on oath, and she can compel the production of documents. More than difficult, it is borderline impossible to create an exclusion that could coexist with the broad powers of the Information Commissioner that are set out in section 36.

What is the way to balance the rights and needs of an independent public broadcaster and the law that says the Information Commissioner ought to be the one to arbitrate disputes? It is the prejudice test. I did not make up the prejudice test. The prejudice test was cited by the Information Commissioner before the access and ethics committee when she testified at its study on section 68.1. Section 68.1 is so flawed that a standing committee of Parliament did an entire study on it. The Information Commissioner recommended a prejudice test, such that if it can be shown that release of the documents would be injurious to a party's independence then disclosure is inappropriate.

It was interesting to hear the comments from the member for Winnipeg Centre. He talked about what cabinet would think about this bill if it came to committee. Then we heard from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice that the government was going to propose amendments to the bill. They do not want to disclose the salaries of DMs 1, 2, 3 and 4 or the comparable salaries of any other government appointments. If I were a member of the opposition, I would think very seriously as to why the government was going to propose amendments to this bill to exclude all income levels under and less than the DM 4 level.

With respect to this bill, my friend from New Brunswick had the most sage speech. As many members know, he was the former director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and understands very well that the concepts of transparency and openness are fundamental to democracy. We in this chamber are members of Parliament. Our job is to hold the government to account; that is, the departments, the agencies and the crown corporations. We cannot hold government to account when government institutions withhold information from us or from other agencies or from other Canadians who are requesting it. Knowledge is power and the only way we can get knowledge is if we have access to the information.

Lastly, this is far from an attack on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. The salary disclosure requirements of this bill are to be applied in the entire federal public service. CBC is in no way being singled out. Transparency is not the enemy of a public institution, far from it. Transparency leads to trust. There is trust that there is proper stewardship over public resources. The people at CBC should want to disclose. They should want this legislation so that Canadians can once again have the trust that they are the proper stewards over public resources.

I encourage all members to support Bill C-461, and in an unamended form, when it goes to committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

It being 7:04 p.m., the time provided for debate has expired.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, March 27, 2013, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

(On the Order: Concurrence in Committee Report)

February 28, 2013—That the 19th Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (recommendation not to proceed further with Bill C-273, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cyberbullying)), presented on Thursday, February 28, 2013, be concurred in.—Mr. Wallace

Justice and Human Rights

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Pursuant to Standing Order 97.1(2) the motion to concur in the 19th Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (recommendation not to proceed further with Bill C-273, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cyberbullying)), presented on Thursday, February 28, 2013, is deemed to be proposed.

[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.

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

Mr. Speaker, as my Conservative colleague mentioned, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights recommended that the bill not proceed further, and I will explain why.

To inform Canadians, I will quote the witnesses who appeared before the committee on February 25 and 27. Their evidence was very good. I encourage anyone with Internet access to read the transcript.

Professor Shaheen Shariff had this to say:

I'm an academic and researcher at McGill University and I have studied legal and policy-related issues regarding cyberbullying for approximately 10 years...

Although cyberbullying is not specifically mentioned in Bill C-273, I have concerns about some of the inconsistencies in the bill, as we heard in the questions posed to [the MP for Vancouver Centre].

Cyberbullying can involve such acts as criminal harassment, threat of sexual assault, defamatory libel, extortion, identity fraud, impersonation with intent, intimidation, as well as sexting, many of which can currently be addressed under the Criminal Code.

My concern is also that there is no mention of smart phones, digital media....I'm skipping over my notes because I know I don't have a lot of time.

My biggest concern is that the code applies to everyone. It talks about everyone. I'm worried that this amendment is in response, as [the member] said, to a lot of media reports related to cyberbullying and related suicides.

The problem here is that we should be looking at two sets of audiences. One is adults, who are mature enough to be held culpable for some of these crimes. They're old enough to know what they're doing. What we're finding in our research, though, is that young people, digital natives—these are children growing up immersed in digital technologies—quite often don't realize what they're doing.

The norms and perceptions of harm by digital natives have changed. These kids, as young as eight, are on Facebook, even though it's illegal to be on Facebook under age 13. There is a higher tolerance for insults, jokes, and pranks. There's less consideration of impact on others. There's less recognition of boundaries between public and private spaces online. There's less awareness of legal risks, which is where I would argue for improved education on legal literacy.

Perpetrators of cyberbullying are often victims as well as perpetrators. This would place them in an awkward position if this code were amended and they were ultimately charged. We might be overreacting. We might be putting the wrong kids in jail.

Then, Professor Wendy Craig said:

I'm Professor Craig. I'm from Queen's University. I'm a child clinical developmental psychologist.

Much of what I'm going to say is to reinforce what's been said by my colleague.

[...]

Punitive measures aren't going to provide that learning context that's going to give them the strategies to be different. I think we need to think about a different response for children and youth than we have for adults because of many of the developmental things that have been raised.

I also do research in the area of cyberbullying, and there are a couple of things in that area that make this legislation a bit problematic. We currently have no universally agreed upon definition in the area, although there has been work by the centre for disease control. I've been part of a task force to define it. There is no universally accepted definition. Part of the current definition uses intent to harm. That's a very hard and difficult thing to measure under a legal context. The current definitions are intent to harm, that there is a power imbalance, that an individual is repeatedly targeted. The more elements we have in a definition, the more the burden of proof is on the individuals who have to prosecute them to make that change.

We need a universal definition. We need to define each of the elements of that definition, such as intention to harm and harm. And we need to know when intimidation and humiliation cross the line into becoming a criminal behaviour problem. Those, I think, are very grey areas without a lot of information.

I want to talk a bit about the problem so that you understand what we're dealing with when we're building laws to address it.

[...]

We also know that online and offline behaviours overlap. Both behaviours happen in social relationships. Both types of kids are involved in both. With cyberbullying, we have children who are also more likely to aggress and be victimized. That puts us in a dilemma, because if we think about a criminal perspective on these children, we're actually revictimizing them when they've actually found a way, although inappropriate, to try to establish some power in themselves.

[...]

I have a couple of messages for you. One is that if we proceed with this, we need to have a legal definition of bullying and standards that can be supported when we enact that law. The second is that we need to have a consistent definition, and that definition has to be known to children, youth, and adults and be equally applied and be equally able to be applied across all of that. The third piece that we need in the legislation is an understanding about when we're crossing the line into criminal behaviour. When does humiliation and criminal intent occur?

The other thing we need to realize is that the majority—at least half of the youth, anyway—report that they don't tell adults about it. They're not reporting the incidents. We don't even know the true prevalence of it. They're not reporting it for fear of consequences. If we make it a legal problem, it becomes more problematic.

I do not want to take up too much of the members' time. Therefore, I will skip to another witness, Peter Jon Mitchell, from the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, who stated:

Finally, there are some serious concerns around the implementation of Bill C-273.

First, we can expect that clarifying the Criminal Code in this manner will lead to an increase in its use. Increased use of these provisions may draw more youth into the criminal justice system, many of whom would fare best if dealt with outside the justice system.

Second, the committee should consider how the increased use of the Criminal Code will impact school-based responses to bullying. Could the adversarial nature of the criminal justice process inhibit community-based responses to bullying?

Finally, it remains unclear whether legislation reduces bullying. In the United States between 2000 and 2010, over 125 pieces of legislation were passed mostly at the state level yet the problem seems to remain as persistent as ever in the U.S.

To conclude, bullying among children and youth requires a community-level approach. On some occasions cyberbullying may escalate to a point where the Criminal Code is necessary to protect victims and the community. Bill C-273 appears to be a modest modernization of existing Criminal Code provisions, but at what cost?

Consideration should be given to the possibility that the increased use of the Criminal Code will create a chill on the community-level approach, particularly by drawing more youth into the criminal justice system.

Refereeing cyberspace is a difficult task. Our best approach is to empower parents, educators, and children and teens themselves to work together.

I support the government's leadership in the prevention of bullying, especially cyberbullying, which falls under federal jurisdiction.

I also congratulate my Liberal colleague. I believe that she had good intentions. Unfortunately, the witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights told us that this was a badly written bill and that it created inconsistencies and redundancies in the Criminal Code. Unfortunately, this could create a litany of problems for our justice system.

In closing, the NDP will continue to support all good initiatives that protect our young Canadians, but motions and bills must be properly drafted. That is not what we heard from the witnesses who appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak to the House this evening about bullying and cyberbullying in particular. The hon. member for Vancouver Centre is to be commended for her bill before the House. The hon. member is someone whose public and private lives have been in the service of others, particularly to those who struggle for equality and acceptance.

Tonight, we are discussing cyberbullying. This is not a discussion on the essential value technology plays in our daily lives but on the reality of bullying moving from the schoolyard or office to the online world. Facebook, Twitter and the like are relatively new means for bullies to transmit abuse and untruths and sadly to unravel the self-esteem and self-worth of others.

When we think of bullying today, we are reminded of the young girl whose life became so dark, painful and degraded that she felt no other option but to commit suicide to escape the pain. Still, there are many others who are suffering in silence. It is very sad. No parent could imagine what it would be like to lose a child driven to suicide because they were made to feel worthless. Cyberbullying is real. On that point, we all agree.

How many young and old Canadians right now in all parts of the country are sitting alone in their rooms, terrified of what might be said or was said about them in an online post, in a tweet or on Facebook? How many young people are now, at this moment, subject to an online post calling them a homo, a fag or a dyke; called fat or ugly; or subject to abuse because they speak or look differently?

Bullying is the reality for many people. Words do matter and often those words inflict devastation on young people. We know that school can be tough, but bullying is not the exclusive domain of young people. I submit to my colleagues that we find bullying here in the chamber. We attack one another for having differing opinions. We exaggerate that which is often not worth exaggerating. We also do not always do a very good job of listening and engaging in real debates where we can learn from one another. Instead, we attack one another. We cast aspersions on others, using the pretext of democracy to legitimize such behaviour. This is, frankly, the poor example we sometimes give to the public and to young people.

Let me give another example. Just last week, we debated a bill on transgendered rights. There are many here who oppose that bill and that is, of course, completely within their rights. In the course of that debate, we heard some MPs using troubling and hurtful language to defend their opposition to extending rights to transgendered Canadians.

It is clear that for some, the transgendered bill simply did not sit right with them. To them, their opposition was expressed in their vote against the bill. They did not take to the airwaves, suggesting that transgendered people were odd or mentally ill. They did not take to Twitter to make fun. They simply voted in a way that reflected their beliefs. Others, however, opposed the bill using language and tactics that could very well be mirrored on any schoolyard in Canada. It was language meant to degrade.

Day in and day out, we had members of Parliament refer to the transgendered bill as the so-called bathroom bill. Their suggestion was not subtle at all. The bathroom reference was meant to frame the debate in a negative way and to create a profile of transgendered people as those who lurk around bathrooms late at night for illicit purposes. The problem is that none of it is true. It is an assertion wholly founded on fear, not reality or evidence.

This is a form of bullying that was extended to cyberspace and was, at times, committed by people who purport to be of faith, decency and moral rectitude. The thousands of Canadians who are transgendered certainly do not need parliamentarians telling them they are strange people lurking about bathrooms.

The point I seek to make is that cyberbullying occurs for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the example we set for others, including young people in our schools. We need to do a better job in the House of setting an example of how to treat one another.

The reason we need to provide protections against cyberbullying is that while a nasty name said on a playground hurts, it will disappear. However, cyberbullying and harassment can be engraved in the public domain forever. Harassments by ex-boyfriends can lead to personal photos being posted that should not be publicized.

We need to empower the victims with tools to reclaim their identities and to protect them from harassment from people they know and from strangers who lurk online. Empowerment is what Joe Killorn, a resident of Stratford, Prince Edward Island, is trying to do after personally witnessing the effects of bullying on a family member. Joe is striving for empowerment to support those who are being bullied and empowerment to change the culture in our schools. He empowers us through the pink shirt campaign on Prince Edward Island to stand out against bullying together. The entire city council in Charlottetown stood together this year against bullying. They recognized that as community leaders we need to show a better example.

We can never legislate behaviour, but we can legislate some consequences to bad behaviour. We need tools and legislative enhancements to tackle cyberbullying, and I believe the bill is one that seeks to address some of those challenges.

While I also realize that the bill is not likely to survive passage because of Conservative opposition, it is my hope that the government will deal with the prevalence of cyberbullying. We must assure young people who feel that they are on the margins of society, who feel that they are not included or who are subject to verbal abuse at school, that they should not have their home, their personal and private space, which has always been a refuge, violated by bullies who now extend the reach of their abuse via Facebook, Twitter and the Internet.

No young person with their whole life ahead of them should have to endure online verbal abuse and attacks on their identity. These online attacks cause such deep and lasting emotional pain that some young people simply find life too much to bear.

I thank the member for her bill and my chance to speak to it. I also want to take this opportunity to recognize and thank all Canadians working on this issue, including Joe Killorn and the many volunteers back home on Prince Edward Island, for taking a stand.

[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.

[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—

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please.

The time provided for the hon. member has finished.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

In my opinion, the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 97.1(2), the division stands deferred until Wednesday, March 27, 2013, immediately before the time provided for private members' business.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

As the hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona is not present to raise the matter for which adjournment notice had been given; therefore, the notice is deemed withdrawn.

The hon. member for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

Foreign Affairs

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since 1967, Israel has been colonizing the occupied Palestinian territories, doing such things as establishing colonies, creating bypass roads for the exclusive use of Jews, installing checkpoints and building a so-called security wall that crosses deep into Palestinian territory.

Since 1967, Israel has sent more than 500,000 Israeli Jews to the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, an area that is set to be the future capital of the Palestinian state. Israel currently has approximately 120 recognized colonies and 100 unrecognized outposts that are illegally located on Palestinian land.

Colonies cover only 2% of occupied Palestinian land. However, including the road network for the exclusive use of Israelis, military bases and buffer zones around the colonies and on either side of the wall, which are completely inaccessible to Palestinians, more than 40% of the West Bank is under Israeli control.

It is widely acknowledged in the international community, by the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations, that the establishment of Israeli colonies represents an obstacle to peace and to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The construction of colonies on Palestinian land is creating a situation that is making it increasingly difficult to implement a solution in both countries, from both a political and logistic standpoint. This is a de facto strategy that allows authorities to establish illegal settlements of colonists and then say that uprooting these people would be unfair and impractical from a political and logistic standpoint.

The expansion of Israeli infrastructure and its security system from actual Israeli territory into the colonies also poses economic and political problems for Palestinians.

The colonies are illegal under various provisions of international law. Article 49, paragraph 6, of the fourth Geneva Convention, which Israel signed, stipulates that:

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

What is more:

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) also expressly identifies the transfer of an Occupying power’s own civilian population to the territory it occupies as a war crime punishable by the ICC.

In 2004, the International Court of Justice gave a formal ruling to the effect that Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, violated international law.

Many human rights reports found that Israeli colonies and their associated institutions inherently violate international law. These colonies and their related infrastructure, such as checkpoints and roads for exclusive Israeli use, severely restrict Palestinians' access to jobs, lands, schools and hospitals.

Will the government tell us why it is refusing to clearly and publicly speak out against the Israeli colonies and infrastructure in occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem?