Yes, I have just one question.
Clause 10 of the bill creates a new section 402 involving identity theft, which, Mr. Bartlett, you were just referring to. In the new section 402.2, describing identity theft, one of the components of the crime is that there is a reasonable inference of an intention. It struck me as odd that in a Criminal Code offence, in order to convict, you have to have evidence or proof beyond a reasonable doubt--that's the standard, beyond a reasonable doubt--when buried in the definition all that is required is a reasonable inference. If it is only a reasonable inference required in the section--if that's all the proof required--doesn't that undermine the need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt? In other words, if the reasonable inference is a weak link in the chain of the components of the offence, that could undermine the ability to convict based on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
I'm simply asking if that has come up. It's only my initial reaction to reading this section, and it strikes me as slightly incongruous.