Thank you.
My question is for Ms. Levman.
You made reference to appellate jurisprudence. I don't know if you were referring to the Marcus Sinclair case, which is from the Ontario Court of Appeal, and it said the test is an objective one. I'll read one sentence: “The assessment here was an objective one: could the appellant’s conduct be reasonably expected 'to cause [the complainant] to believe that her safety was threatened.'” We had witnesses tell us that, too.
How would the Bloc's amendment change that? You're saying it would become more of a subjective test. Would that have made a difference in the outcome of the Sinclair decision, which I think confirmed the conviction?