Thanks, Mr. Chair.
I've thought about this, and I appreciate the purpose and intent behind the amendment. I recognize what the Canadian Bar Association said. However, I accept the officials' explanation as to its codifying Ewanchuk and adding the word “active”. If you look at paragraph 27 in particular, it talks about “active behaviour”. There are other paragraphs indicating that the conduct must be more than passive, which is the state of the law right now in common law. J.A. uses the words “active consent”.
I had some difficulty until it was explained regarding the difference between the French and the English, but in French the word manifesté I believe is different from the word in English, and they have to be read together.
While I appreciate the intention of it, I think the bill as drafted correctly identifies the state of the law after Ewanchuk and J.A., and that's why I'm not going to be supporting this amendment.