Mr. Chairman, I'm a bit confused. I would like to put a question to Ms. Morency and Mr. Comartin.
First, it seems to me that there is a difference between matters of form and the substantive conditions that govern legislation on marriage. The provinces have jurisdiction over matters of form, that is to say how marriages are solemnized, for instance the publication of banns, and the federal level has jurisdiction over matters of substance. Among the substantive conditions, for instance, we find the degree of genetic relationship between individuals, which could prevent them from getting married.
I thought that the age at which one can marry was a substantive condition, but, given that the federal government had legislated on the matter, the provinces had been allowed to include provisions, for instance in the Quebec Civil Code, stipulating conditions regarding age, which are normally substantive conditions.
I would like someone to explain to me whether we consider that age, if ever there were a constitutional challenge and we had to go before the courts, is part of the substantive conditions surrounding marriage or whether it is considered a matter of form only.
Also, I thought that the bill as it stands currently would protect us against the scenario evoked by Mr. Comartin. I would like him to give us an example in order to enlighten us. What situation are you referring to when you talk about provisions of the bill that would not cover the case of married individuals who will not have reached the legal age set out in the bill when it comes into effect? How could that be possible? To what specific situation are you objecting? This isn't clear to me.
Mr. Chairman, as usual, you are not listening to me, which makes us like an old married couple.
My question is addressed to Ms. Morency and Mr. Comartin.