Thank you for your testimony. It was very clear and helpful. However, I have two questions.
First of all, related to proposed paragraphs 264.01(2)(a) and (b), the intent or mens rea section, I think you were saying this wording does not require proof of actual victim fear as an objective test. I accept that on face value, but then I look at proposed paragraph 264.01(2)(c) on the next page, in which you use the wording “could reasonably be expected to cause the intimate partner to believe”. What's the difference? Why are you using the phrase “could reasonably be expected to cause the intimate partner to believe” in proposed paragraph 264.01(2)(c), but not also in proposed paragraphs 264.01(2)(a) and (b)? That's my first question, and I'll just throw out my second question.
Following up on what Mr. Moore was saying about having this list of seven items under proposed paragraph 264.01(2)(c), my fear is that, when you draft a list, maybe you're missing something. Maybe instead of seven there should have been eight, nine or 10 examples, because sometimes by including a list you're limiting the scope of the bill.
This came up in a study earlier this session, in October, on Bill S-12, the sex offender registry. Dr. Roebuck, the federal ombudsman for victims of crime, and Professor Benedet were concerned that judges were misunderstanding sexual offences, and were worried about rape myths creeping in. They said that Parliament could respond by setting out a list of factors for judges to consider. We put forward a motion to that effect, and Mr. Maloney had this to say:
I remember the evidence because I think I was the one who actually asked the question, but in my experience, the more you include, the more you exclude, because crafty lawyers...will see a list and then argue that it's exhaustive.
That's a concern. I thought it was a good comment at the time. He almost convinced me to vote against our own motion. He can comment on that if he wants, but that's not the point. As to my question, in taking a look at proposed paragraph 264.01(2)(c), if we take out the words between the hyphens—“including conduct listed in any of the following subparagraphs”—and then exclude all the subparagraphs, have we completely gutted the intent of proposed paragraph 264.01(2)(c), or is it still effective?