I'd like to direct a question to the Canadian Bar Association or any of the legal technical heads around the witness table.
Ms. Mackinnon has mentioned this concept of a presumptive exploitive relationship. I'm attracted to the concept, because if a court were confronted with a real relationship between, let us hypothetically suggest, a 15-year-old and a 21-year-old, which by all accounts looked like a real relationship and where the charges were generated by suasion of family or something, not necessarily by the 15-year-old complainant—let's say he or she wasn't a complainant but the charges just got generated—it seems to me that a court would look somewhat sympathetically at a defence that was based on a constitutional freedom of association, personal freedom of the 15-year-old and of the 21-year-old. I'm suggesting here the potential availability of some constitutional defence that would be analogous in impact to the impact of the presumptive exploitive relationship concept suggested by Ms. Mackinnon.
Would you care to comment on whether or not the rigid close-in-age exemption would be vulnerable to a Constitution-based defence in a small number of cases, but hypothetically out there?