I will address that, if I may.
Certainly we were very happy to hear the suggestion of a presumption. The close-in-age exemption is a very important aspect of the CBA's consideration of Bill C-22, and we consider it essential. Anything that would allow a defence to be raised in the appropriate circumstance, I can say, should please both crown and defence and obviously maintain judicial discretion.
If a relationship is not shown to be exploitive, there should be a defence. People should not be criminalized for non-criminal activity. As my friend has pointed out, presumptions are certainly rebuttable. If it is shown to be exploitive, the purposes of the legislation would still be met.
You're asking whether the close-in-age exemption must be rigid. It would be my response, and I think I would speak for both crown and defence when I say this, that under the charter rigidity in the law is not something we should strive for, but there should be flexibility and tolerance. Certainly no one will escape a penal consequence if in fact a relationship is shown to be exploitive, regardless of the age difference. But there ought to be the lack of rigidity rather than—