:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and committee members, for the opportunity to appear before you today in regard to Bill on behalf of the Institute of Marriage and Family Canada, a social policy think tank that conducts and compiles research on issues pertaining to the Canadian family.
Just last week another study was published in a peer-reviewed journal that linked the damage done by bullying during childhood to the increased risk of mental health related issues in young adulthood. The consequences of unaddressed bullying are severe.
As I continue to review research and engage with parents, I encounter a high level of anxiety and a sense of helplessness among parents of bullied children. Many of our attempts to stay ahead of the cyberbullying issue are akin to refereeing a soccer game from outside the stadium. As parents and caring adults, we prepare our children, acknowledging that once they enter the online world they're on their own. It is as if we are left peering at the field of play through a gap in the fence. Caring adults are largely absent in the online world of children and teens. Bullies know it, and they thrive where adults are absent.
Conceptually, enforcing the full weight of the Criminal Code on bullies appeals to the popular sense of justice, but this simplifies what is often a complex issue where many bullies are also victims. Functionally, the criminal law occupies the far end of the continuum in a series of bullying interventions among children and youth, the demographic that I want to speak to today.
The Criminal Code can protect victims and the community from escalating harm, but it is a very particular tool within limited circumstances. Before speaking to the specific merits and concerns that I have with Bill , I want to acknowledge two limits to the function of the Criminal Code that should ground our expectations on what it can accomplish.
Use of the Criminal Code will not eradicate bullying.
First, applying the criminal law does not address the nature of bullying. At its core, bullying is a relational issue that requires relational intervention. Canadian clinical and developmental psychologist Gordon Neufeld understands bullying to be an instinctual, social, and emotional issue. Children, like adults, instinctually connect and attach to others, forming caregiving and care-receiving relationships. This is easily observed when watching children play. Neufeld argues that these naturally forming hierarchies facilitate the drive to care for others, but where instinct should draw upon empathy, the bully, often impaired by his or her own emotional trauma, is compelled to expose and exploit perceived weaknesses. Unmaking a bully takes time and requires relational capital.
Second, the Criminal Code is limited in the ability to prevent and deter young cyberbullies. As Wayne MacKay, who chaired the Nova Scotia Task Force on Bullying and Cyberbullying, noted in his report, “...the criminal law, while necessary and useful in certain serious cases, is a limited and often ineffective tool against the social problem of bullying.”
Professor MacKay notes that criminal law has limited impact on prevention and deterrence for young people. In fact, until very recently, the Youth Criminal Justice Act omitted the principle of deterrence during sentencing, in part because of this assumption that youth are less likely to be deterred by criminal sanctions.
American criminologist Thomas Holt summed it up well when he argued, “It's very hard to say that any 14-year-old with a cell phone who can text is going to think about a cyberbullying law when they're communicating with their peers.”
The best response to bullying is a community-level approach that brings together parents, caring adults such as educators, and children and youth. Research demonstrates that home and school environments are key to preventing the escalating nature of bullying.
Authentic relationships between youth and adults are critical to shielding victims and unmaking bullies. Justin Patchin, a criminologist at the U.S.-based Cyberbullying Research Center, who testified before the Canadian Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, said elsewhere, “The vast majority of cyberbullying incidents can and should be handled informally: with parents, schools, and others working together to address the problem before it rises to the level of a violation of the criminal law.” But of course there are situations where the Criminal Code is necessary to protect victims and the community from escalating harm.
What are the merits of Bill ?
First, the bill brings the stated sections of the Criminal Code into the 21st century by addressing common tools of communication. Some have argued that the Criminal Code is already sufficiently broad to encompass electronic bullying behaviours, particularly section 264. The amendment to section 264 may be unnecessary.
Second, the modifications are modest and clarify existing sections of the Criminal Code rather than proposing new sections of untested criminal legislation.
Finally, there are some serious concerns around the implementation of Bill .
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 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.
Thank you.
:
Thanks very much for inviting us to make a presentation today on this growing and disturbing issue that is affecting the lives of so many of our youth. We applaud the standing committee on human rights for its work on that front.
Before I present to you our federation's recommendations, allow me a few minutes to provide you with a quick overview of our organization and our work on cyberbullying over the last six years.
The Canadian Teachers' Federation is a bilingual umbrella organization composed of 15 member organizations and one affiliate member, representing nearly 200,000 teachers across Canada. We are a member of the international body of teachers, Education International, which represents over 30 million educators around the world.
CTF began addressing the issue of cyberbullying in 2007, when a growing number of teachers started to report cyberbullying incidents in their schools. The incidents were not only devastating for the targeted students but also harmful for the entire school and the learning environment. Teachers also became targets of these unwarranted attacks, further damaging what should be a safe place conducive to learning.
In 2008, after many months of research, discussion, and cooperation, the CTF member organizations adopted a comprehensive policy aimed at addressing cyberbullying. Our definition of cyberbullying is the use of information and communication technologies to bully, embarrass, threaten, or harass another person. It also includes the use of these technologies to engage in conduct or behaviour that is derogatory, defamatory, degrading, or illegal.
Our policy's guiding principles are based on the premise that safe and caring schools should be a national priority; that we as a society all share responsibility for ensuring safe, respectful learning spaces and cyberspaces for our children; and that freedom of expression should be balanced with the rights of parents and educators who seek to ensure a positive online learning experience for students. I'm paraphrasing those guiding principles, of course.
Our policy takes a two-pronged approach that focuses on education and protection initiatives. The policy also recommends roles and responsibilities for students, parents, teachers, school boards, governments, and website or service providers.
In our brief, you will see a reference to a national public opinion poll on cyberbullying that we conducted in 2010. I won't go through the findings today, but will highlight the fact that back then, three-quarters of Canadians knew what cyberbullying was, and one-third personally knew a student who had been cyberbullied.
Given the amount of media coverage in similar surveys, the awareness is most likely very much higher today. An Ipsos Inter@ctive Reid report released last December shows that one in five online teens says that they have witnessed someone they know being bullied on social networking sites.
It also points out that teen ownership of smartphones has increased 18 percentage points to 43% since 2012, prompting what they call a move from cyberbullying to “mobile bullying”. You can see that we're already moving into the next phase of this problem. This speaks to the constant evolution of the problem and the need for concerted action.
Today I'd like to focus on one particular issue that we need to examine very attentively: the mental health of our students. The connection between bullying and mental health issues has been identified time and time again by studies and researchers.
According to Dr. Patrick Baillie of the Mental Health Commission of Canada, there's a link between bullying and mental health. He concludes that the history of victimization and poor social relationships predicts the onset of emotional problems in adolescents, and that previous recurrent emotional problems are significantly related to future victimization
Last week a new study was released by JAMA Psychiatry, an international peer review journal. It found that victims of bullying at school, and bullies themselves, are more likely to experience psychiatric problems in childhood. Researchers have found that elevated risk of psychiatric trouble extends into adulthood, sometimes even a decade after the intimidation has ended.
Experts say that the new study is the most comprehensive effort to date to establish the long-term consequences of childhood bullying. The researchers found that victims of bullying in childhood were 4.3 times more likely to have an anxiety disorder as adults, compared with those with no history of bullying or being bullied.
Furthermore, study after study shows a direct correlation between bullying, mental health issues, and academic achievements. How can students learn effectively when in fear for their safety?
Teachers want to intervene at the earliest possible time, but they need support from the federal, provincial, and territorial governments, as well as school boards.
It is time for a national conversation to take place among governments, educational stakeholders, and private ICT providers. The industry needs to hear first-hand the issues that schools, families, and communities face in trying to address the issue of cyberbullying. Stakeholders need to hear what ICT providers are doing to address the concern and what they are prepared to commit to as part of their responsibilities. Government needs to play a role in bringing parties together and facilitating change.
The CTF has presented briefs on a number of occasions to parliamentary committees, to the Senate, and has met with Justice Canada officials urging for amendments to the Criminal Code to address online harassment, cyberstalking, and cyberbullying. We have a number of recommendations that we would like to put forward at this time.
Canadian teachers are seeking the support of the Government of Canada in recognizing the extreme impact of the misuse of technology, as manifested in cybermisconduct and cyberbullying, by developing partnerships with the Council of Ministers of Education, Canada, the Canadian School Boards Association, and the Canadian Teachers' Federation, and by supporting the creation of a national strategy to address child and youth mental health issues in Canadian schools.
We are also seeking the Government of Canada's support for a public awareness and education campaign that focuses on appropriate cyber conduct and the prevention of cyberbullying; amendments to the regulatory framework for the rating of films and video games to reduce the possibility of excessively violent products being sold to children and youth; amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada that make it clear that the use of information and communications technology to convey a message that threatens death or bodily harm, or perpetuates fear and intimidation in another, constitutes a punishable offence under the Criminal Code; enacting new information and communications technology/cybermisconduct and cyberbullying legislation that protects teachers, students, and others from harm; and facilitating through regulation and legislation an incentive for a national dialogue with corporate ICT providers aimed at developing a common cause between private and public sectors in addressing cyberbullying.
That would be a large step toward putting forward an end to cyberbullying. As was suggested recently, with the release of the mental health strategy for Canada by the MHCC, the government should support the development of a national strategy in addressing bullying, including cyberbullying. A first step would be to orchestrate a national symposium of educational stakeholders and community leaders, whereby the beginning steps would be taken to ensure a consistency in approach across the nation.
As part of Canada’s commitment to the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child, every youth, regardless of where they live in Canada, deserves the right to live in a community and attend a school that is a safe place.
Canadian teachers believe in healthy learning and teaching environments; however, we need support from the political arena to make it happen.
Thank you.
First of all, before I begin my presentation, I will say that I am not an academic. I'm a dad; I'm a father. I have a teenage daughter and a son. I am also a middle school teacher. I've taught for many different years in different parts of Canada. Having teenagers at home and teaching and working in a middle school, issues around kids, especially, of course, issues like cyberbullying, are a huge part of my life. You have already heard from learned academics, and I greatly respect the work of the other folks who have presented today. I respect and admire their work, and I'm proud that the Canadian Teachers' Federation has seen fit to include a little bit of my work in some of their publications. With that as a bit of a backdrop, I'll continue.
My presentation is called,“Cyberbullying: What we know, What Should Be Done”. My history around the issue of cyberbullying goes back to 13 years ago when I created and launched the website, bullying.org. It was in response to a horrific event that happened here in Alberta at a high school where a young man went into the school and took another young man's life. It turns out that, unlike Columbine which was not actually about bullying, in this case bullying was a significant issue. I just felt as a dad, as a teacher, and as a citizen I needed to do something. So I created the website bullying.org as a safe place where kids can go to find help, support, and information. Basically, it's a place to share your voice through stories, poetry, artwork, music, video. We actually had people uploading video to our site before YouTube was invented. We read all the submissions and all the replies.
Over a decade ago, not long after the website went online, we began to read about young people reporting stories about being bullied online. This came from parts of the world like Asia, Scandinavia, the United Kingdom. The reason is that their smartphones or their phones were far in advance of what we had in Canada at the time. I thought, okay, this is something quite new and different. So I borrowed from the Canadian science fiction writer named William Gibson, the one who coined the term “cyberspace”, and I simply thought, if this is bullying and it's happening in cyberspace, I can put the two together, and I coined the term “cyberbullying”.
I proposed this definition years ago and it's held up fairly well, although I know academics are constantly arguing about some of the nuances. But what makes it bullying in any form is that it's deliberate, repeated, and there's an intention to harm others. What happens here, though, is it happens to be in cyberspace and it's using various information technologies. That's when I came up with that particular definition.
I thought what I'd do is summarize this, if you will, in terms of tweets. I'm sure most of you are familiar with tweets, which are short messages. You can post up to 140 characters. So I thought about some of the main points I could make in the form of tweets, if you will.
I think we need to rethink bullying as an issue. We need to really look clearly at what cyberbullying actually is. We need to understand that there needs to be a strong family focus to this. We need to understand, from my point of view, that prevention is the priority. This law, the proposed bill, will likely create ripples in the adult world, but I believe its effect in the world that I live in, that of teenagers, will be modest at best. So I think that prevention needs to be our priority.
I think we as adults need to understand that there's no B chromosome. People aren't born bullies. Bullying is a behaviour. It's learned. We adults, myself as a dad, as a teacher, as a citizen, need to become much more aware of and conscious of our own actions and behaviours, because children and young people don't necessarily learn what we tell them about or lecture them about. They much more readily emulate the behaviours that we present in front of them. That means in person and online.
We need to train teachers. I'm a proud member of the Canadian Teachers' Federation, and the Alberta Teachers' Association, but I will tell you that the vast majority of teachers in Canada, when they go to university, do not get training about bullying. It's like having nurses and doctors who aren't trained to help the public with the flu, which is unthinkable today. Not only was that the situation when I graduated from a great school, a four-year teacher education program, unfortunately it is still true for many young people who are getting ready to graduate now. That needs to change.
When we're looking at what cyberbullying is actually like in terms of kids, and we're thinking about what impact legislation might have, we have to understand what the mindset is of kids when they're involved in these things. I do understand that adults have been impacted by cyberbullying as well, but I'm a dad and a teacher, so my focus and my sharing will be around young people.
I call it the perfect storm, the idea of “net-izenship” or what it means to be a digital citizen, and the corporate world needing to be part of the solution, and what I call wheel alignment.
I will try to speak to these things quickly. I do apologize if I go fast. I have two decades' worth of thinking to present in a short time, so I'll do the best I can.
With regard to rethinking bullying, we need to understand that bullying is not a normal part of growing up; it's not a rite of passage. We need to rethink bullying not simply as a school issue, as we have done often in the past, but as a community health and wellness issue. Cyberbullying really illustrates this point because most cyberbullying, the research tells us clearly, happens away from school. We need to be very clear that cyberbullying is bullying, and I always appreciate how hurtful this is. They didn't grow up with it, but it is incredibly harmful.
Cyberbullying is not so much a technology issue. Technology is an amplifier. It amplifies the best of who we are as human beings and, unfortunately, the worst, including things like cyberbullying.
From my point of view, after thinking and working on this issue for over a decade, cyberbullying is actually about people and relationships and choices. A hammer can be used to harm someone, but a hammer can also be used to build beautiful edifices. It's not the hammer, the Black and Decker or Stanley hammer, that's the issue, or whether it's a cellphone or Facebook. Those are tools, incredibly powerful tools, but it's what we choose to do with them that's really the issue.
When we look at addressing cyberbullying appropriately, we need to have a family focus. We, as parents, myself included, need to become much more aware and engaged in our kids' online activities and behaviours. We would never think of giving our kids the keys to the car and telling them to go for a drive on the Queensway or the 401, yet every day parents line up at the local mall to include their kids in cellphone contracts and hand their kids cellphones. The cellphone, in my opinion as a technology teacher for many years, is the most powerful communicative tool in the history of mankind. It is literally bringing down governments, yet we blithely give our kids these incredibly powerful tools without really appreciating that very much.
We need to focus on prevention through education and awareness. Laws and policies have their place, but they tend to be mostly reactive and punitive. In a way, it's almost like putting a Band-Aid on a gaping wound: the damage has already been done. I'm sure it would be no surprise to you that as an educator I think it's much better to focus our time, energy, and resources on prevention through education.
We, as adults, need to walk the walk and not just talk the talk. I am a social studies teacher. I'm not making a political point here; I'm making a behavioural point. When we begin our social studies class we talk about the news. One day one of my students came in and said, “Mr. Belsey, what is this all about?” As a teacher, I'm rarely lost for words, but I truly was lost for words in trying to explain how it was that our political leaders were doing this to one another. We wonder why it is that kids are cyberbullying. Again, bullying is a behaviour and it's learned. All of us as adults, myself included, but leaders at the highest levels, including in the House of Commons, our leaders in Ottawa, need to understand that kids are aware of these sorts of images. Youth remember and emulate what adults do, not so much what we say. That is critically important.
What can be done with regard to education? We need to train teachers. I've made this point already, so I won't go over that again. Most teachers are not trained, and they need to be.
What is to be done? First of all, I have a couple of quick words about what not to do. We shouldn't use a fear-based approach. Too many times the police, who have an incredibly difficult job, or the RCMP, who I respect very much, get invited to go into schools to talk about these issues. Unfortunately, if you go into a high school or middle school and talk about how awful the Internet is and how terrible cellphones are, you get the dreaded rolling of eyes. We shouldn't give the FOG, fear of God, speech. We need not address this through fear.
We also shouldn't chase technology. Right now schools are struggling to decide whether to allow cellphones in the classroom. In my class, it's something that happens all the time; we use our cellphones like hand-held computers. But a lot of schools are really struggling with this. Google has already launched the Google glasses so we'll have wearable computers.
On the idea of chasing down websites or chasing technology, we, as adults and teachers and others, don't have the time to do this, and there are no quick fixes. You can put a filter in your school system or in your home, and you can throw a boulder into the Ottawa River, but just as with the digital world, the water will find a way around it.
There is this idea that I like to talk about called the fallacy of control. It used to be that only the kids in schools who had pocket protectors, known as nerds and geeks, knew what a proxy server was. Now, the average high school student knows exactly what a proxy server or a circumventor is. They know how to get around all these filters. We pretend to do our due diligence, but we're kind of fooling ourselves. We have to get real when we deal with this issue.
When we're thinking about a bill and what—
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm going to ask Mr. Belsey a question.
In the past decade, bullying and cyberbullying have contributed to a number of suicides, and that's definitely regrettable. To name some, and certainly not the least of them, they include: Amanda Todd of British Columbia, Jamie Hubley and Mitchell Wilson of Ontario, Jenna Bowers of Nova Scotia, and Marjorie Raymond of Quebec. It's a tragedy that continues and continues, and I guess it's a testament to the severity of the effects of cyberbullying.
With respect to targeting cyberbullying, our Conservative government is already addressing the issue through non-legislative initiatives that include, for example, the national crime prevention strategy and bullying prevention programming, as well as through funding offered by the RCMP, Public Health Agency of Canada, Industry Canada, and Justice Canada.
Lianna McDonald from the Canadian Centre for Child Protection with our Conservative government's support has expanded Cybertip.ca to address instances of youth-transmitted sexual images, whether they're through texting or the Internet. These measures are in addition to others under way at the provincial level. For instance, there is Ontario's Bill 13, Accepting Schools Act, 2012; and Quebec's Bill 56, An Act to prevent and stop bullying and violence in schools, introduced on February 15, 2012. That's not long ago. These all address bullying in schools.
Mr. Belsey, in one of your interviews, you stated that bullying is a behaviour that can be shaped and formed, and you were noting that the best way to deal with such behaviours is to educate and inform and not to punish.
Could you expand on this, please?
:
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 . 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.
I want to focus my thoughts today on Bill .
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 .
Both Professor Shariff and Professor Craig also voiced concerns from the CanadianCoalition for the Rights of Children, noting that Bill 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 '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?
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair. You have come at the right time because I was hoping to be able to put some questions to our guests, whom I want to thank.
As Mr. Albas noted, the people who introduced Bill C-273 are well-intentioned, but I think this bill poses quite a serious legal problem. I am not sure that this bill, as worded, can achieve its objectives.
I believe I clearly understood your arguments regarding prevention. Incidentally, to help Mr. Belsey understand the joke that was made a little earlier, since it is hard to understand everything over the telephone, Mr. Morin is doing an outstanding job on the issue, and I believe we are all a little more aware of the cyberbullying issue as a result of the motion he introduced calling for a national study and as a result of Dr. Fry's bill.
The devil is always in the details, as I always say. We are preparing to amend the Criminal Code. However, I do not agree with my colleagues opposite, and, like some of our guests, I am not convinced that adding words that I believe are already implied will cause any major problems. The definitions contained in section 264 respecting criminal harassment refer to other means. We know very well that the courts generally supplement less specific terminology to adjust it to various existing technologies.
One thing in our Liberal colleague's bill surprises me somewhat. It merely adds words without creating any new offence as such in the Criminal Code. Nor does it create any new sentence. You probably have not seen them, but I have examined the amendments that will be brought forward. The amendments pose the same problems as the bill itself.
My view differs from those of our guests on one point. I do not think this will make any difference for young offenders. I may ask you that question, but that may take more than five minutes. I thought it was important to make it clear that this would also apply to adults. Nearly all our witnesses who have spoken about bullying and cyberbullying among young people and about the approach that we should take are aware of this. I was very pleased to hear my colleague Mr. Goguen tell us about restorative justice because we have been talking about that for years now in connection with various bills, particularly when they focus on young people.
However, the Criminal Code will apply to everyone in the same way. Bullying is a fact. I seriously wonder whether we should not ensure that this appears in the Criminal Code in order to send a message. I do not think that would be very complicated. It will probably not solve all the problems. You mainly talked about bullying among young people, but not that much about bullying among adults.
I somewhat share your opinion that this may not be the right solution. And yet I believe it was well intended. However, I do not agree with you that this is not criminal behaviour. I think it is genuinely criminal behaviour in some cases. We must avoid saying that bullying or cyberbullying is never criminal. It is a form of harassment or, in some instances, assault or something else.
I will listen to what my colleagues around the table have to say. They may feel your suggestions are not necessarily wrong, Mr. Goguen. However, I believe there is a great deal of improvisation going on in this bill. What has convinced me on that point, apart from the excellent presentation by our colleague Dr. Fry, who did a very good job of defending her position on Monday, is that, immediately afterward, we wound up with a list of amendments that gave me the impression, upon analyzing them, that if we had—if you will pardon the expression—pitched out any section of the code, she would have added it to her bill.
That troubles me somewhat. We are talking about the Criminal Code. I want to say that we in the NDP have made an effort from the outset to identify the logic of the amendments presented. Do not worry or think that I am going to leave them off the hook simply because I lean a little to the same side as my colleague Mr. Goguen on this subject.
In the study of this bill, I was very pleased to hear some Conservative colleagues using expressions such as "restorative justice" and to see that they strongly agreed with certain witnesses. They told us that, in the case of those youths—and we often talk about young offenders—this could be a form of criminal behaviour and that a different approach had to be adopted considering the meaning of the word "crime". It seems to me the NDP has been saying this for a long time.
I am very pleased if this is a new direction that our Conservative colleagues are taking because it may mean that we will be able to do good things. If this is merely an ad hoc action because they do not want to support the bill and want to go back to a firmly punitive approach, I would have a problem with that. I remember the discussions we had on the bill of our Conservative colleague who advocated minimum sentences for other acts of that kind. However, as we know, it is often young people who engage in this kind of behaviour. It is an act of a moment, but we cannot make them think.
Before deciding which way to lean on this motion, I will wait and see whether our Liberal colleague has anything to add. Whatever the case may be, there is a lot of improvisation going on here. Mr. Cotler, I see the sections that are being added here. One concerns sexual assault. We will try to see how someone can commit a sexual offence using a computer. Another concerns assault. It seems to me that would be somewhat difficult using a computer.
I am not sure much thought has been given to this matter as a whole. Given the serious nature of this matter and of all the efforts currently being made, perhaps we would do well to think before amending such an important instrument as the Criminal Code of Canada. I believe all my colleagues around the table realize that.
I really share my NDP colleague's concerns. I raised some points that we are addressing today when Dr. Fry introduced her bill in the House of Commons and we debated it. As you know, I support young people who are being bullied in Canada. I believe that, if a step is taken in the right direction, it must be supported.
However, not many of the experts who appeared during the two days devoted to studying the bill said that the emphasis should be placed on criminalization. Even around this table, we understand that funding must be allocated in order to make a real contribution to solving this problem. Organizations in the field and certain programs that help young people must be supported. Otherwise Canadian families must be assisted so that they can equip themselves more effectively. If parents do not know that their child is a bully—we talk a lot about those who are bullied, but let us not forget that bullies also have parents—how can they find a solution?
I myself am somewhat torn. When the NDP voted for the bill on second reading, it was not because we felt it was perfect, far from it. However, it was a good idea to conduct the discussion we are having today. I am pleased that the witnesses have helped fuel the discussion. That gives us some serious food for thought. Even though the Library of Parliament people told Dr. Fry that her bill was in order, several experts and some committee members thoroughly analyzed the initial bill and noted that it was problematic in several respects, particularly with regard to the redundant nature of the offence created.
If I voted in favour of this bill, I do not believe the problem of bullying or cyberbullying in Canada would be reduced by one iota. At best, we would be modernizing the language. As we saw, in London a few months ago, I believe, the police intervened in the case of some young girls who were bullying another girl over the Internet. We increasingly hear about police departments that have necessary tools and intervene in extreme bullying cases.
We are talking about assault and harassment here, but the vast majority of cyberbullying cases fall into a grey area, not a clearly criminal category. Otherwise, the police have the necessary resources to intervene to protect the victims.
I am anxious to hear my other colleagues' comments, but I want to say that I am very much torn. Even though I believe it is important to support efforts that are headed in the right direction, I do not believe this bill changes anything in any tangible way, apart from a few words in the Criminal Code.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would like to respond to Mr. Cotler, who said a little earlier that criminalization was part of a whole. I am concerned by the fact that we heard witnesses say criminalization could have a negative effect,
[English]
putting the wrong kids at the wrong place. That's something which for me is of concern. I don't think in any of the amendments that were put forward we really addressed this issue.
[Translation]
I understand why one might think that is a step in the right direction. I know that my colleague, Mr. Morin, has worked very hard on this, particularly in the area of prevention. And, as my colleague Ms. Boivin said, I am very pleased that the Conservatives are talking about prevention. You would think we were in the twilight zone, where everything is reversed. As someone who is beginning to sit on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights,
[English]
I find it really interesting.
[Translation]
Indeed,
[English]
I do have some concerns in terms of what we heard from the witnesses, experts saying that this does not really address the issue for youth, that it might have a negative impact on youth. That is of concern.
I also agree with Mr. Seeback. I also asked Dr. Fry about what this bill would have changed in the past. I did not get a clear answer. She went on to talk about one specific case, but it ended up that they did not pursue it or it never went further.
Also, if we look at it from a technical perspective, we have probably heard that it doesn't add much. One of the witnesses asked if mobile bullying would be covered in terms of cyberbullying. We do not think it would, but then it would already be covered by the Criminal Code.
I understand where the Conservatives are coming from. I just wanted to put in my two cents.
First, I would like to speak to Mr. Cotler. You are asking that we suspend everything in order to see whether we can improve matters and find a solution. That is tempting because we rarely see an outstretched hand. I believe this is the first time we have been in this situation and have wondered what it means in reference to a bill.
That being said, there is still one problem. I have looked at this from all possible angles, and I do not see how we can manage to stay within the scope of the bill. In fact, this merely amounts to verbiage. These are merely words that already exist.
It was also striking to hear Dr. Fry constantly stop before the word "otherwise" during her testimony. However, the word "otherwise" appears in the section, which means there could be other ways of viewing the matter. She was right in saying that three other types of words could be added to the section, if we consider section 264 of the Criminal Code, for example. However, the word "otherwise" will still be there because the purpose of her bill was not to remove that word, which makes it possible to adjust over time.
The only thing I could see was if we really wanted to try to send a message. I want it to be clear that I am not necessarily reluctant to do so. I am very much aware of the fact that witnesses talked to us about bullying and cyberbullying and told us that prevention, discussion and education are extremely important when dealing with young people, far more so than other themes. I understood all that.
Sometimes, however, you have to be able to tell the truth and to say that this is unacceptable behaviour. In fact, it is worse: it is criminal behaviour. I do not feel that your bill will change that. Perhaps it would have been preferable for it to do what was done with regard to spousal abuse. A clause was drafted and is now included in sentencing measures. Perhaps that is where it should have been included. Perhaps that is what should have been done, but it is not up to me to change her bill.
Now I turn to Mr. Goguen. You have introduced a motion. Perhaps it would be a good idea to have it in writing. Standing Order 97.1(1) reads as follows:
97.1 (1) A standing, special or legislative committee to which a Private Member's public bill has been referred shall in every case, within sixty sitting days from the date of the bill's reference to the committee, either report the bill to the House with or without amendment or present to the House a report containing a recommendation not to proceed further with the bill and giving the reasons therefor or requesting a single extension of thirty sitting days to consider the bill, and giving the reasons therefor.
Once again, the devil is in the details.
Before deciding whether to support your motion, I would like to have the details that will accompany it. If there is a sentence in those details that indicates that we are talking about temporary behaviour and that it is not criminal, I will not be able to support it. It is criminal behaviour, but it would be treated differently and might not be criminalized within the meaning of the Criminal Code.
It is in English only. Honestly, Mr. Goguen can do better than that.
:
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 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:
[English]
Parliamentary review of the bullying issue still is on-going and legislation to introduce this matter is pre-mature.
[Translation]
I do not doubt the Conservative government's good will, but when we talk about
[English]
parliamentary review
[Translation]
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.