I just want to urge the government once again to think about this issue before rejecting this extremely important amendment out of hand.
Victim representatives have appeared before our committee. They said it was extremely important for this part to be adopted, but also for this part to be able to withstand scrutiny in court. The danger we are seeing in this, and we are not just trying to be
a pain in the butt of the Conservatives. It has been deemed by specialists so floue, so grey, so not clear, and so easy to contour, that I'm afraid all the work the government thinks it's doing on cyberbullying will be completely wiped out, just because of....
As a lawyer, I can see so many ways of getting out of clause 3 of this legislation that it's unreal that the government doesn't take a moment to reflect and realize the importance of maybe addressing the real issue, which is distributing intimate images for the reason of really harassing, intimidating, embarrassing, and annoying. Those are words that say what this says. When I look at the case of Rehtaeh Parsons, and when I see the case of Amanda Todd, I can see that you have no problem seeing exactly that in those cases.
It's a big danger. I think it's a big red light for the government to maybe not be too bullheaded and insist that it has to be their own words or no words at all. Honestly, for all the victims, I think it's something that I truly believe in. If we want to do our work well, at least on that part, we have to make sure that we're not giving ammunition to people to play lawyers in front of the courts.