I simply want to make sure that I understand this correctly. Otherwise, perhaps Ms. Mackinnon or the Canadian Bar Association could provide greater clarification.
What would be the advantage of having a presumption, which I would imagine would be rebuttable, within this bill, instead of a clearly established rule of law? As far as I'm concerned, it is the first I have heard of this. Am I right in thinking that you seem to be encouraging us to support a presumption rather than a clearly prescribed rule of law? If so, what would the advantage of that be? Did I understand what you are saying correctly, or did I misinterpret your comments?
I'll also have one other question, which will be brief.