Justice committee  That correction just means the accused is married. It should be “(b) the accused...”--

Justice committee  I don't believe so.

Justice committee  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.

Justice committee  I'm trying to explain--

Justice committee  If you look at what's in the bill introduced by the government, in proposed paragraph 150.1(2.2)(b) you have the exception that the accused is the common-law partner and is not in a position of trust. That is the formulation that would better reflect the concern that I think Monsieur Petit was mentioning.

Justice committee  That's right, because that provides only one exception, which is less than five years. But in the amendment Mr. Comartin proposes to merge these together. That's why I'm suggesting that if the intent of the subamendment is to follow through with the normal drafting convention, you would follow the model you have before you in proposed subsection 150.1(2.2).

Justice committee  The charter risks are not at all the same for the two scenarios described. If you provide a permanent defence to a married couple, but not to a common-law couple, the charter risk is very high. The charter risk in the other situation is in fact what Bill C-22 proposes, and we do not have the same risks.

Justice committee  Three do not allow any under 16.

Justice committee  They set the minimum age at 15, and a court can issue the licence to someone under the age of 15 in the circumstances that she's pregnant. Yukon doesn't allow an exception at all to under the age of 16.

Justice committee  Under the age of 15, that's correct.

Justice committee  On that issue, if you provide a defence to a married couple, you'd be denying the same defence to a couple similarly situated, and that would raise a concern about charter discriminatory treatment. Parliament has seen those issues in recent years. So that would be a significant concern.

Justice committee  Okay, are you talking about common law?

Justice committee  That's my understanding.

Justice committee  It would not be considered criminal if he meets the definition of common law here or if she's.... Okay, they're actually cohabiting, she's pregnant, but they haven't been living together for a period of one year, yes.

Justice committee  Yes.