Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We've heard in the witness testimony before in regard to this bill about the seriousness of cyberbullying as a whole. Mr. Goguen effectively put before us today in his initial question the very serious, harmful consequences that can result from bullying, in the most extreme cases, a loss of life. We've heard as well the testimony regarding how it affects health and even academic development over time, etc.
We've also heard from the witnesses that what we need is a comprehensive strategy with regard to this. Mr. Goguen has mentioned some of the important initiatives that the government has taken with respect to that comprehensive strategy. I would acknowledge as well that the witness testimony would not have put the criminal law remedy as the best remedy, or even the preferred remedy, but they did not necessarily say that the criminal remedy should be excluded. In other words, the criminal law remedy would be part of a package of the comprehensive strategy, although not the most important or best part of the strategy, but a component of it.
I find the discussion somewhat ironic in that the Conservatives, who are normally the best proponents of the criminal law option, are the ones saying we don't need the criminal law option, and I, who have generally been reluctant to suggest a criminal law option, saying we should look to more comprehensive approaches, am today supportive of the criminal law remedy. But it's in the way that I've always supported it, as part of a larger strategy.
I would like to suggest that Mr. Goguen's motion be tabled to allow us to see if we can work together to improve this legislation so we can have an effective criminal law remedy as part of a larger strategy, rather than exclude the option of a criminal law remedy at all. I think we might be perhaps limiting ourselves unduly by excluding it at this stage before we see if we can amend it to make it part of an effective strategy.