I think Mr. Dechert just made my point on why we should have divided the bill. Honestly, it starts.... We haven't decided on the title of the bill, but when you see that its short title is actually the “protecting Canadians from online crime” act and it's mostly to create the infraction of distributing intimate images, the argument that I just heard is about fisheries and different aspects. I understand that we use the opportunity to modernize pretty much every tool under the sun, but that was the point. It's not necessarily how the bill was presented and what its objective was supposed to be. In the words of the mother of Amanda Todd, that's the danger of this whole bill, that it's distracting from the essential and central part of what we were supposed to do. Those are such good examples.
My amendment was to try to centre it a bit more toward what we were supposed to be doing, and honestly, if we want to change all the tools at the disposal of
of peace officers and public officers
for any type of legislation, that proves also the point of the Privacy Commissioner that we just heard.
We need to have a much more thorough and inclusive type of study, a study with the point of addressing cyberbullying, because it has been deemed the cyberbullying bill. Again, I'm hearing about fisheries and different types of things. That's what I find the biggest danger with this bill. I don't think we have, around the table, or even with the witnesses that we heard, any expertise on how things are done in all those other fields, because we were studying cyberbullying, which was in front of us. This is not what it's about. I find it's a bit sad that we don't at least focus, and if we want to do other modernizing, maybe we should send it to the right committee to do so and not through the justice committee on a cyberbullying bill.