I'm not sure if I'm in the best place to explain. I think perhaps Mr. Comartin might be better placed to explain his understanding of this. But the way I read NDP-1 and NDP-2, it's clear that, as I understand the second one, the intent is to say the new age of consent or age of protection would apply only prospectively--so to cases that arrive after this case. It's not in Bill C-22 now because the law applies prospectively only and would apply only to situations that arise after the new age of consent comes into force. Those who would be caught would be those who are already in the situation, and that's why the transitional exceptions apply.
In terms of the first amendment, again, I probably would share Mr. Comartin's view that the wording is a little bit.... It's not immediately obvious to me as it's been explained to him by the drafters. I'm not sure if Mr. Comartin has a further explanation. But I understand the intent is to basically extend the transitional exception on a permanent basis.
As I say, just having seen it minutes before the committee began its hearing, it strikes me as a bit.... It's not the obvious solution, but I take Mr. Comartin's advice on that.