Mr. Chair, I think Ms. Latendresse is entirely correct. I can't see how you could identify a person or persons responsible for the threats against the minister.
As you say so well, because it is not even an organized group, anyone can use the name Anonymous, which is even encouraged by the people marketing it. In my opinion, there isn't much we can do about that.
However, I am dedicated to the institution of Parliament. Based on this morning's discussion, everyone seems to believe, as I was saying earlier to Mr. Garneau, that a line was crossed by Anonymous. Threats were used, which is unacceptable.
One of the things I learned this morning is that the group apparently sponsors certain malicious websites. If you oppose a bill, you are given instructions to express your opposition. In fact, they don't really help you send an email to the minister to express your disagreement; instead, they have you send something else that, suddenly, triggers a malicious process. Some people who are opposed to a bill, who may be of good faith and who would like to voice their opposition, may unfortunately find themselves on such sites.
I will say again that there needs to be education. It would be important for a report by the committee to indicate to citizens that we want them to be engaged and to participate in the political debate, but that they mustn't be fooled by things they may not understand. You have to be careful. Signing petitions and sending emails is fine. However, it is not always that simple.
I would like to clarify the following point. Mr. Bard said that 70% of emails are not sent to parliamentarians. It is important to specify what an email campaign is; they are done in certain ridings or regions and are perfectly legitimate. I'm talking about emails that have an address: that is acceptable. However, when an address is not identifiable, we have a case that is part of the 70%. I wouldn't want people to think that many emails on a given subject will not arrive because someone decided to clean up.