Thank you, Mr. Chair.
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.