Thank you for that clarification.
There is one other area on which I wish to seek clarification. You made reference to the defence of mistaken belief. It was suggested yesterday by one of the witnesses—I believe it was Ms. Lee—that based upon the current wording in Bill C-51, that defence would effectively be eliminated both in terms of mistaken belief on the basis of fact and the law. I believe that the issue comes with subparagraph 273.2(3)(a)(iii), “any circumstance in which no consent is obtained including those referred to”, etc.
Do you agree with her analysis, that unless that wording is changed, there would be the risk of at least creating a lot of confusion about whether that defence in the context of mistaken belief would be an available defence?