Yes, I know, Madam Chair, but we're moving so quickly. I'm trying to keep up. I'm looking for the motions that were apparently sent out earlier. They aren't motions, actually, but regardless. I don't want to waste the committee's time.
Once again, I have to point out a lack of clarity in the wording of G‑2, which also appears in G‑4. Respectfully, G‑2 and G‑4 have the same problem, in my view. I realize the amendment pertains to the English version, but whether it's in English or French, the provision will be used by the courts to interpret the law.
The wording proposed in the amendment, “who is the subject of the order” does not take into account the fact that it is not the victim who is the subject of the publication ban. Rather, it is the victim's identity. Saying “who is the subject of the order” makes it seem as though the order applies only to the victim. The victim would be ordered not to disclose x or y, but it would not apply to, say, journalists, the public, court clerks or other lawyers in the courtroom. That's not what we want. The publication ban applies to everyone. Everyone is the subject of the order, but the order protects the beneficiary, as opposed to the subject. It's understood that the victim is the beneficiary of the order.
Here's what I propose to make it more clear. Instead of saying “who is the subject”, we could say “whose identity is the subject of the order”.
If the government members agree, it could be a subamendment.