Evidence of meeting #62 for Justice and Human Rights in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was marriage.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
The English and French drafting in proposed subsection 150.1(2.1) in Bill C-22 is exactly how the subamendment is displayed. There's an “and” in English, but there isn't one in French.
Acting General Counsel, Department of Justice
That is because it does not have to be exactly word for word the same in English and French, the context, as long as you end up with the same point.
The point I'm trying to address is that with the subamendment, because there's a merger of the two current transitional defences into one section, the concern that Monsieur Petit has highlighted between (a), (b), and (c) would suggest a parity between the three, and that's not what's being proposed or intended, as I understand it.
If you were to reword it--not that we're proposing that--to understand the subamendment that would address the concerns that I believe have been addressed, (a) would be “the accused”, then subparagraph (i), “is less than five years older than the complainant”,
as can be read in paragraph (2.2).
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Excuse me, Ms. Morency.
I'm getting somewhat confused here about the procedure that's happening right now. We have Mr. Comartin's motion and then a subamendment, but now we're down into proposed subsection 151.1(2.2).
Acting General Counsel, Department of Justice
I'm trying to explain--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
First of all, before you get into the explanation, for my benefit, are the motion and the subamendment satisfactory in the way they are crafted?
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
Mr. Chairman, Ms. Morency has quite properly pointed out that because of the way we're providing a subamendment, we have moved from two criteria to three. As a result, it may be visually confusing as to whether we have a conjunctive or a disjunctive, an “and” or an “or” in different places. So to clarify that, she's proposing that we move the two criteria dealing with five years and not in a position of trust together under one paragraph, which would be called (a)(i) and (ii), and under a second paragraph that is disjunctive, or (b) married to the complainant. She is simply restructuring the three criteria, so instead of having “and”s and “or”s all over the place--(a), (b), (c)--we have proposed paragraph (a) broken into two parts with two conjunctive conditions, and proposed paragraph (b), which is the married exemption.
I agree with her. It is easy to do. I'm sure Ms. Freeman agrees as well.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Do we need to suspend here just to get a written copy of this, or is it clear?
Bloc
Réal Ménard Bloc Hochelaga, QC
Why do you not allow Mrs. Morency to make sure that everything fits properly?
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
What seems to work, Mr. Chairman, is if Ms. Jennings reads it out. Everybody seems to listen and nod their heads. So if that would be acceptable to our counsel, then go ahead, Ms. Jennings, and read it out.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
This is how the subamendment would read, and I'm going to take it from the very beginning of proposed subsection 150.1(2.1) so everyone can read along:
(2.1) When an accused is charged with an offence under section 151 or 152, subsection 173(2) or section 271 in respect of a complainant who is 14 years of age or more but under the age of 16 years, it is a defence that the complainant consented to the activity that forms the subject matter of the charge if
(a) the accused
(i) is less than five years older than the complainant; and
(ii) is not in a position of trust or authority towards the complainant, is not a person with whom the complainant is in a relationship of dependency and is not in a relationship with the complainant that is exploitative of the complainant; or
(b) is married to the complainant.
Acting General Counsel, Department of Justice
That correction just means the accused is married. It should be “(b) the accused...”--
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
No, but it starts at.... Okay, “(b) the accused”. Yes, sorry.
Liberal
Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON
I agree with Mrs. Morency again. Add the words “the accused”.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Duly noted.
Does everyone agree that this is now the subamendment of Madame Freeman?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Art Hanger
Debate? I know there's going to be some comment about this.
Mr. Petit.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
I have a question for Mrs. Jennings, Mr. Chairman.
You read the words « un moyen de défense si l'accusé ». It is at the last line. Did you keep the words « à la fois » in the French version? You did not keep them, didn't you?
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
I read in the English version. In the French version of the Bill, there are these words: « si l'accusé, à la fois ». This will still be in the French version.
Conservative
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
Yes, in French It will be part of the sub-amendment.
Conservative
Daniel Petit Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
You understand the meaning of the words « à la fois »? It is the same thing.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
In case you didn't hear, I neglected in (b) to repeat “the accused”--“the accused is married to the complainant.”