Thank you. I only mean to intervene, Mr. Chair, because, with great respect to my colleague, I don't think that's correct in this case.
The bill does delegate some authority to the provinces to make changes, but not in this clause. The subclause says:
It is not a defence to a charge arising out of the contravention of subparagraph (1)(a)(ii) that the accused believed that the individual referred to in that subparagraph was 18 years of age or older, unless the accused took reasonable steps to ascertain the individual’s age.
I'm sorry, but I don't see how a province can change that in any way whatsoever. Even if the provinces were to make the legal age of consumption 19 or 20, it wouldn't change this. Even if it did, I would say that it makes my argument even stronger, because it wouldn't be a defence to say that you thought they were over 19.
I respect that people may want to vote against this amendment, but I don't think they should vote on the basis that they think a province can fix this clause. I don't think that's the case.