I am going to let Ms. Guthrie get into the discussion. We would not want Toronto people to get bored.
I seem to remember reading some comments from you on the burden of proof in terms of consent. They want to amend section 162 by adding subsection 162.1(1), which reads as follows:
Everyone who knowingly publishes, distributes, transmits, sells, makes available or advertises an intimate image of a person knowing that the person depicted in the image did not give their consent to that conduct, or being reckless as to whether or not that person gave their consent to that conduct, is guilty:
What interests me in that section is the burden of proof. Normally, the Crown has to provide all the evidence of an offence. I seem to remember reading something to the effect that the accused would have the burden of establishing that he obtained consent and that he took the trouble to find out if the person in question consented or not. Should that be specified in an amendment?