Thank you for your very good question. I appreciate it in particular, since it was asked by the member for Sherbrooke, the member who represents me.
If the committee accepted my recommendation and decided that the bill should focus only on the issue of sexual victimization and revenge porn, rather than also include the hate component, that's where the issue of bureaucracy arises. The fact that the issue of sexual victimization has been mixed up with the issue of hate is problematic, since we can agree on one part but not on the other. We are mixing up two debates that aren't necessarily related. However, this approach has the advantage of ensuring that there's a volume of cases that perhaps better justifies the creation of the commission, the ombudsperson and the office. That's what I wanted to bring to your attention.
Considering the different points of view and the challenges related to freedom of expression, you could get away with focusing on sexual victimization. Does that justify this question, which is more targeted and very important? Does that justify the creation of these three organizations? That's what I'm mainly drawing your attention to. If we look for avenues other than creating this bureaucracy, we can think of legal recourse by individuals, as legislation often allows. A person could initiate a lawsuit. If they've been a victim or if they've suffered damages, they may be inclined to use that kind of recourse. However, it raises other issues, such as access to justice.
Another possible avenue would be to imagine a fund dedicated to victims of revenge porn or, more broadly, hate speech. That could facilitate access to justice.