When I listen to your reading of the Bill, Mr. Chairman, I understand the request of my parliamentary secretary. I do not see the word “and” in the Bill. if you add “and”, when the lawyers start using this clause, they will say “less than five years and...” This means that it is a conjunctive but there is no “and” in the Bill at this time. Whether one uses “or” or “and” makes a difference. I do not see why you said there is an “and” when there is not. That is what Mr. Moore was saying: there is no “and”.
When I read the sub-amendment, I see a paragraph a) submitted by Mrs. Carole Freeman, and paragraph d) becomes paragraph b). There is no “and”. And, if I understand correctly, there is a comma after b). The semi-colons and commas are important to lawyers: sometimes, they might save someone's life. If I understand correctly, there is a full stop after paragraph c). It is not a conjuctive, they do not add up. The way it is presented, the accused would have to prove “less than five years”, that he is not this or that, whereas they are three separate defenses. If you add “and”, they become three defenses that have to be used together. Any lawyer will destroy you with that. So, the “and” should not be there and I suggest that it be withdrawn.