Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much, Mr. Warawa, for answering our questions.
My first question has to do with the first provision, which is at the core of the bill. It states that the offender may not be within two kilometres of a dwelling where the victim is present. You know this bill, it is your bill. You wrote the following words “where the offender knows or ought to know”. I don't know if you consulted the House of Commons legislative drafters, or if you consulted organizations. What would be the scope of the words “knows or ought to know”? Who will determine how the person ought to know this? Will the court provide him with the information? Will it be his responsibility? Should he know this? If so, how will the Crown or the court determine that he ought to have known this, what criteria will they use? Would it, for instance, have to satisfy the criterion of ''reasonable grounds to believe'', or would it be the criterion of ''beyond any reasonable doubt''? How should this obligation to know be interpreted by lawyers, judges, and here, by members of Parliament?