First of all, I was glad to see that the provisions around cybersexual assault were added adjacent to “voyeurism” in the Criminal Code. I do see a lot of parallels between these two types of behaviour. I think they fit together, and I think that was an appropriate place for it.
I also appreciate that it's written into the bill that the subject of the image needs to have.... If they had a reasonable expectation of privacy at the time the image was captured, in addition to at the time the image was shared or the offence was committed, I think that by having these two things in there, you're covering a lot of bases and making it relatively airtight.
I liked a lot of things about it. It was primarily the “being reckless” as to whether someone gave their consent that I took issue with.
The other thing that I think could potentially be a problem is in proposed paragraph 162.1(2)(c). I am concerned about the latitude with which a judge might interpret whether a subject had a reasonable expectation of privacy at the time the offence was committed.
As an advocate in this area, I have seen a lot of people try to pursue justice for these things, whether through harassment legislation or through child pornography legislation. Having law enforcement officers.... I've seen it, certainly in the States and potentially here, as well. In some cases, even judges will just decide, because they personally think you shouldn't have shared those images in the first place, you wouldn't have had a reasonable expectation of privacy at the time the offence was committed. So I think there's potential for it to be interpreted.