One thing that Mr. Lee said, with which I agree wholeheartedly—and that's why I am saying this—is that this bill is not about marriage; it's about the age of protection. So in going down this trail on the issue of marriage, which is addressed in the bill, we're not dealing with what the reality is out there. Ms. Morency has the numbers; the reality is that this is not taking place. I think there's some breakdown between what Mr. Lee says is the intent of the amendment and what Mr. Comartin says is the intent of the amendment.
In Mr. Comartin's fact scenario, a criminal offence took place, and this is contemplating an older individual marrying someone younger, and thereby becoming exempt from criminal prosecution. This is what we were saying when I talked about some sort of retroactive protection from prosecution.
We've seen some examples, and Ms. Morency can talk about this a little further. I am concerned about us creating a blanket defence for someone pursuing marriage in order to prey on a young individual. I think this bill has done an excellent job of contemplating the scenarios. Also, I haven't heard anything yet that would indicate we should change it, in light of the fact that there are transitional provisions, consistent with provincial jurisdictions, and the numbers certainly bear this out.
From the scenario Mr. Comartin raised, we don't want to look back and provide retroactive protection for someone who's preying on a young person.