I can answer. Thank you for the question.
This is something I was also looking at in the amendment. With the fact that we are already defining “intimate partner” in section 2 of the Criminal Code of Canada, I think we could refer to this section in the definition of this particular amendment.
I had a problem with “dating partners” and “two persons who have agreed to marry each other”. I find that this is—I'm sorry—a bit backwards. People aren't necessarily going to get married. They are dating. They are in a relationship. More often, we are seeing people dating who are not living together. This is almost the new norm. People are not getting married. I will speak about Quebec, because a lot of people in Quebec are not getting married. The “dating” is a bit awkward to me.
Opening the door to dating partners could open the door to other forms of partnership, like people who are caught in human trafficking and are in a dating relationship. I've been talking about human trafficking to judges and saying that a lot of people who are trafficked are in dating relationships and are thinking the person is their boyfriend, but they're not. That could open the door for this. I would definitely want to see something a little broader for the definition or go back to section 2.
There was also the limitation of the two years post-separation. Research is telling us that the control and tracking of the victim goes well beyond the two years of separation. I think it's important to note that post-separation is very important, but let's maybe not limit this to two years or less, because I've seen cases where the victim has been controlled well beyond the two years.