translate English to French:  As suggested in Li v. Canada quoted above, a comparison of the "elements" or (underline ours) "defences" of both the foreign state and Canadian offences "requires essentially the similarity of definitions of offences", a "purpose (which) would not be served by a rule that two offences are not equivalent because the requirement of a particular intent in the foreign law is treated as an element of the offence, whereas in Canadian law its lack is treated as a defence."
Canada Ã©voquÃ© ci-dessus, une comparaison des Â« Ã©lÃ©ments Â» ou (nous soulignons) des Â« moyens de dÃ©fense Â» des deux infractions tant dans lâ€™Ã©tat Ã©tranger quâ€™au Canada Â« exige essentiellement la similitude de la dÃ©finition des deux infractions. Ce serait faire Ã©chec Ã ce but que de poser pour rÃ¨gle que deux infractions ne sont pas Ã©quivalentes parce que l'existence d'une certaine intention est considÃ©rÃ©e comme un Ã©lÃ©ment constitutif dans la loi Ã©trangÃ¨re, et son absence, comme un moyen de dÃ©fense dans la loi canadienne.