Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.

Results 1-12 of 12
Sorted by relevance | Sort by date: newest first / oldest first

Justice committee  The CBA as a whole has not considered the presumption option. Again, when I spoke earlier, I had misunderstood the question. I thought it was an expansion beyond the original close-in-age exemption as set out in the bill, proposed, and as supported by the Canadian Bar Association

March 29th, 2007Committee meeting

Margaret Gallagher

Justice committee  I understand your question, sir. The CBA understands that children, young people, are sexually exploited, and there is a need to protect them. We feel the existing law has done so, and effectively the new proposal isn't going to change the mechanism by which that is done. It is

March 29th, 2007Committee meeting

Margaret Gallagher

Justice committee  Yes, it does, and by definition in the Criminal Code, a complainant and a victim are the same. To answer that question, that's a decision a court would have to make.

March 29th, 2007Committee meeting

Margaret Gallagher

Justice committee  As to whether....

March 29th, 2007Committee meeting

Margaret Gallagher

Justice committee  Certainly the state of the law—All that is changing here is the age of consent. The notion that somebody who was under the age of consent could, under existing law, come in and say they were not a complainant hasn't changed.

March 29th, 2007Committee meeting

Margaret Gallagher

Justice committee  I understand.

March 29th, 2007Committee meeting

Margaret Gallagher

Justice committee  But then that becomes an issue for police and crown and discretion in the eyes of the authorities.

March 29th, 2007Committee meeting

Margaret Gallagher

Justice committee  Thank you. Certainly the close-in-age exemption is essential in the CBA support. We are satisfied with the five-year exemption; we feel that it is realistic and it is fair.

March 29th, 2007Committee meeting

Margaret Gallagher

Justice committee  Perhaps I misunderstood your question earlier. I had taken you to mean a presumption beyond the close-in-age exemption, and I just wanted to correct that. I don't know the answer to that question. I do know that in the past, based on past law, what we have agreed to would pass c

March 29th, 2007Committee meeting

Margaret Gallagher

Justice committee  Again, thank you for the opportunity to clarify that. Certainly we stand by our position.

March 29th, 2007Committee meeting

Margaret Gallagher

Justice committee  We take no issue with the close-in-age exemption as proposed.

March 29th, 2007Committee meeting

Margaret Gallagher

Justice committee  Thank you. As we've set out in the letter that Ms. Thomson has referred to, the CBA is very mindful of the fact that children must be protected from sexual exploitation by adults. We are also aware that the existing age of consent might contribute to sexual exploitation in some

March 29th, 2007Committee meeting

Margaret Gallagher