Bill C-36 (Historical)

Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act

An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment amends the Criminal Code to, among other things,
(a) create an offence that prohibits purchasing sexual services or communicating in any place for that purpose;
(b) create an offence that prohibits receiving a material benefit that derived from the commission of an offence referred to in paragraph (a);
(c) create an offence that prohibits the advertisement of sexual services offered for sale and to authorize the courts to order the seizure of materials containing such advertisements and their removal from the Internet;
(d) modernize the offence that prohibits the procurement of persons for the purpose of prostitution;
(e) create an offence that prohibits communicating — for the purpose of selling sexual services — in a public place, or in any place open to public view, that is or is next to a school ground, playground or daycare centre;
(f) ensure consistency between prostitution offences and the existing human trafficking offences; and
(g) specify that, for the purposes of certain offences, a weapon includes any thing used, designed to be use or intended for use in binding or tying up a person against their will.
The enactment also makes consequential amendments to other Acts.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am pleased that this amendment is in order. It seems to me that we all heard witnesses talk about this aspect of the issue, which involves decriminalizing the work of prostitutes and sex trade workers—to please everyone. That is what people were looking and asking for.

If we are consistent, I think that there should be some openness since the preamble of the Conservatives' bill states that we want to protect these people. That seems obvious to me. In short, I do not think there should be a major problem with this because the government is decriminalizing this aspect and criminalizing another.

As you can see, we did not ask for the criminal records of people who buy such services to be erased or suspended. That proposal seems to be consistent with Bill C-36. I therefore do not see why our Conservative friends could not move in that direction.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As with several of the other amendments proposed earlier by the government, this is a technical amendment to clause 23 of Bill C-36.

Clause 23 proposes to amend the list of offences included in the definition of “primary designated offence” and “secondary designated offence” for the purpose of forensic and DNA analysis. The DNA provisions authorize the taking of a DNA sample in two situations: where persons are convicted of designated offences, and pursuant to a warrant where police have reasonable grounds to believe a designated offence has been committed.

The proposed changes at clause 23 are consequential to the proposed repeal of existing prostitution-related offences, notably section 212 of the Criminal Code and the proposed enactment of the new prostitution offences in clause 20.

Furthermore, clause 23 as currently drafted would include section 212 offences as historical offences for the purposes of the DNA scheme, including paragraph 212(1)(j), living on the avails of prostitution. The need to amend clauses 8, 9, and 10 to address their listing for historical offences purposes identified the need to delete the specific reference to paragraph 212(1)(j) in clause 23.

This would make it clear that a warrant for DNA could not be issued for a historical offence investigation in relation to paragraph 212(1)(j) initiated after Bill C-36 comes into force. The operational impact of this deletion would be minimal. If after Bill C-36 comes into force a warrant is sought to collect DNA to investigate an historical procuring offence alleged to have been committed before Bill C-36 comes into force, police would be able to rely upon other listed procuring offences as set out in paragraphs 212(1)(a) through (h).

For those reasons, we're proposing this amendment and will be supporting it.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank Madam Mourani for the amendment. The government does not support it. In our view, it's inconsistent with the policy of Bill C-36, which is to ensure that individuals who sell their own sexual services can develop legitimate family and business relationships on the same basis as anyone else.

For example, it could mean that a roommate who shares rent and other living expenses, which is a legitimate living arrangement, with a person under the age of 18 who sells their own sexual services would be guilty of an offence. That's what this could mean and that's not what we intend. Such an approach would have a negative impact on the most vulnerable persons who are exploited through prostitution, and in our view may be contrary to the Supreme Court of Canada's findings in Bedford. So on that basis, we will not be supporting this amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Mike Wallace]

Okay.

Ladies and gentlemen, I call this meeting of the justice and human rights committee back to order. We're doing the clause by clause on Bill C-36.

When we suspended for lunch, we were just about to begin with NDP amendment number 5, that Bill C-36, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing line 29 on page 10 to line 2 of page 11 with the following:

(i) for a first offence, a fine of $1,000, and (ii) for each subsequent offence, a fine of $2,000; or

Madame Boivin, the floor is yours on your amendment.

[Nathalie Levman]

That said, it doesn't criminalize the implementation of certain safety measures. It doesn't prevent people who sell from implementing those safety measures that Bedford has outlined. We always have to go back to the main objective of the bill. It posits that prostitution is a form of sexual exploitation. Because so many people who sell are women, it's also considered to be a form of violence against women. In no way does Bill C-36 seek to facilitate the practice of prostitution, be that through the purchase or the sale of sexual services.

[Nathalie Levman]

Well, Bill C-36 posits that the best way to reduce the harms of prostitution is to not engage in it. That's true. That said, Bill C-36 recognizes that its ultimate objective will take time to realize, and during that time it has been informed by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Bedford.

It doesn't prevent implementation of certain safety measures that the Supreme Court of Canada found were extremely important to the safety of those who sell. So those measures have been considered today, I believe, including moving indoors and working indoors independently and cooperatively—

[Nathalie Levman]

As the parliamentary secretary says, the main objective of Bill C-36 is to reduce the prevalence of prostitution with a view to ultimately abolishing it to the greatest extent possible. In no way does Bill C-36 seek to facilitate, allow, or condone prostitution.

It doesn't criminalize the sale, that's true. There's no specific provision that criminalizes the sale. You have been reviewing the provision that criminalizes the purchase. The blanket criminalization of purchasing sexual services is consistent with the main objective of the bill, which is to reduce the prevalence of prostitution.

Back to my first point where Bill C-36 doesn't intend to facilitate prostitution. It's not allowing the sale by failing to criminalize it, it's immunizing the person who sells from prosecution for any part that they may play in any of the prostitution offences.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Well, I think the parliamentary secretary missed my point, that point being that it's all about consent. If you're dealing with and buying somebody who is coerced and exploited, that is the main infraction.

That being said, I'm a bit surprised, because I find it's a complete reversal of the speech we heard from the parliamentary secretary on Bill C-213. The argument on Bill C-213 was that we want to get them off the street, because Bedford was all about the danger surrounding the street practice of prostitution, plus the fact that we don't want kids to see that.

Fine. They can go and do that in a much safer place, which is their own place. But he just said no, you're missing our point on Bill C-36. We want to criminalize any individual in every circumstance who buys.

So what the hell can they sell and to whom? That has been my question from day one. Maybe they would have been better to agree with Ms. Mourani who was plainly asking for them to abolish it, to call a spade a spade and say that the act of buying and the act of selling is wrong. But they're not doing that.

Maybe the officials can answer my question then. What can they sell and to whom, based on Bill C-36? Is there anybody who cannot buy sexual services except criminally, by virtue of Bill C-36?

Also, has your department thought of maybe using the notwithstanding clause based on section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to say the whole thing is illegal, that we don't want prostitution?

That's what I heard from the parliamentary secretary, that we want this done and over with, so no selling and no buying at some point in time, because what good is it to sell something that cannot be bought by anybody?

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Once again, I thank Madame Boivin for proposing this amendment.

In my view, the amendment misses the main purpose of Bill C-36, which is to, for the very first time in Canada, criminalize the purchase of sexual services from any individual, to say quite clearly and loudly to all those who are considering doing this, that we don't condone it, that doing so unreasonably puts sex workers themselves at risk. We've seen it over and over, and over again, with the brutal stories we've heard.

In my humble and considered opinion, Mr. Chair, this is not a business just like any other. It's unique; it's different. Far too many people are victimized by it. The demand is what drives it. The demand is what powers it. If the money weren't there to buy the services in the first place, there wouldn't be women trafficked into it. There wouldn't be young men trafficked into it.

As I mentioned earlier, and we heard it from witness after witness, this is a paradigm shift in the way we deal with this. Some may disagree, and I understand that. It may mess up their business plan. There are businesses that we don't allow to happen in Canada.

There are people who can use heroin for years and apparently not suffer significant negative medical impacts from it. But we know that most do, so although there are people who earn a living from selling heroin—and, yes, it still goes on even though it's been illegal for a very long time—we say that's not something that should happen in Canada.

We can't allow more of these kinds of stories to happen. I don't want to sit here 10 years from now and hear about the next generation of Bridget Perrier's story. It's incumbent upon us as elected officials to do something about this.

In my view, this amendment misses the mark. It would make the criminalization of the purchase of sexual services far too narrow to say we're only going to arrest and charge you for communicating for the purposes of purchasing sex while you're intimidating, holding a gun to the head, assaulting, or exploiting somebody.

It makes it ridiculously narrow and, therefore, to no beneficial effect, in my view. If they are holding a gun or a knife to the throat of the sex worker, of course, the police are going to move in and they're going to be charged with serious aggravated sexual assault. That's what's going to happen. This provision is not for that. There are many provisions in the Criminal Code that deal with that. That's not what's at issue today.

What we're saying to all those who would purchase sexual services of another person in Canada, “We don't agree.” It's not a business like any other. We strongly advise you not to do it. If you choose to, the police just might be there to put you in the back of their car, and then you'll deal with the consequences. Then your family will know what you're doing, as well as your co-workers and neighbours.

Only by doing that will we ever get at the nub of this issue, will we ever be able to look Bridget, Timea, and Katarina, and all those other women in the face and say, “We did something. We heard you and we're not going to let this happen to the next generation of young Canadians”.

As I said, it's inconsistent with the main objective of the bill, which is to reduce demand. I don't think it would effectively address the demand for prostitution. I also don't believe that any witness asked us to do this. They were on one side or the other. They said, “Criminalize the purchase, tell people, especially the men, that women's bodies are not for sale in Canada. It's not right and we don't condone it”.

Or “Laisser les bons temps rouler.” Every community in Canada will be a red-light district. We've got lots of willing purchasers just across the border in the wealthiest country in the world who are willing to come on in and take advantage of those services. For those who are able to do it in an equal, power-sharing way, having made a personal choice to provide their services, my goodness, there will be a lot of money out there for them. They're going to do very well. That's a great business model, you know.

If it were not for the fact that people get killed in this business every day, it might be something people might want to look at investing in. But, unfortunately, it's not just like any other business.

I don't suggest people invest in the drug trafficking trade, although that is also a very profitable trade that some people choose to do and people on the other side choose to inject heroin into their veins.

In the same regard, we're saying that's not something that we believe should happen in Canada. We don't think it's good for Canadian society and for all those reasons we'll not be supporting this amendment.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I want to use clause 18, first of all, to thank our Bibliothèque du Parlement for all of their work. Especially when we're talking about mandatory minimum sentences, I'm always curious to see the jurisprudence on the issue and what type of sentences have already been awarded and so on.

Thank you to Dominique and his colleague for their great work in a fast-paced fashion, in giving me that information, to show me that there is a wide variety and range on trafficking. It could go anywhere from between two years to seven or eight years, and so on.

I think that everybody around this table strongly detests

—anything that has to do with human trafficking. Mrs. Smith can speak to that. If I am not mistaken, when she introduced her bill a few years ago, the House passed it unanimously. I say that without prejudice but, in any case, it received our full support. There is nothing more disgusting than one individual who exploits another. Every provision in the Criminal Code that addresses this type of situation and this scourge is important and deserves our support. The sentences need to be solid.

I am always distraught when I see that sentences vary between two and eight years. There needs to be more consistency at times. I am not a fan of mandatory minimum sentences because they do not allow the courts to be analytical. They also take away the courts' ability to use discretion. I am not talking about being able to do whatever they want; I am talking about applying the facts of the case to the person who committed the crime and so on.

However, there are crimes that are not that easy to forgive. It is not surprising that offences involving kidnapping or human trafficking are subject to stiffer sentences. People need to know that. In this case, we have been talking primarily about prostitution, but there are aspects of these amendments that touch on human trafficking and sentencing. That leads me to another comment.

When I spoke about slowing the process down, I was not talking about slowing it down for no reason in particular. There are many parts to Bill C-36. I have the impression that it has been reduced to stating what prostitution is exactly. That's it, that's all. There has not been much focus on the concept of human trafficking in Bill C-36. There is also the issue of the DNA that will be collected. There are many other aspects that we will not have time to cover during our analysis because of the time we have and the number of witnesses we have heard from. That is, perhaps, my only regret.

All of that said, I would like to thank you. You are doing a wonderful job helping us with this so that we can better understand the legal aspects. The work of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is quite legal in nature.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am having a hard time understanding the parliamentary secretary.

We may have some information, but it would be even more clear and precise if we knew the impact that the government thinks Bill C-36 will have on protecting communities and those who are being exploited.

I would like to point out to the parliamentary secretary that the preamble, which will in no way be included in the Criminal Code, will serve only as a guideline. It provides an explanation and gives an overview. It will surely serve as a guide for the courts when they have to rule on the practical aspects in criminal proceedings. It will be useful in that way.

In fact, it is part of our powers. Committees, and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in particular, have fairly far-reaching powers. We are the legislative committee that acts as a shield of sorts for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. He has very clear obligations with respect to the Constitution and protecting the rights set out in the Charter.

It is legitimate to ask that the Minister of Justice produce this report, which seemingly exists, according to some of what my colleague was saying. I think it would be important to compile all of this in a report so as to provide some clarity about what the government aims to do, namely the short-term abolition of prostitution, pure and simple. I hope that is the case, for him at least.

It is surprising to see that someone is opposing virtue in the context of Bill C-36.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think that'll be very important because, as they say:

The writing is on the wall.

It's quite clear where Bill C-36 is headed. Nevertheless, we'll keep working to try to get the Conservatives to listen to reason. This is a very important issue, so it's important to have this type of report—a summary of the impact of this legislation on the health and safety of prostitutes.

This follows up on the essence of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Bedford, which is the health and safety of prostitutes.

Since the government did not think it was a good idea to declare all forms of prostitution illegal—whether it's the purchase or sale of sexual services—it's leaving the door open and it often uses the argument that they can do this in this place or that place. We need to read between the lines that prostitution is partially allowed. We'll have to see what the impact will be.

It'll be interesting to see statistics on prostitution in Canada. When I say prostitution, I don't mean human trafficking. I mean prostitution in Canada. This will certainly bring about increased awareness of the agencies that are working together—the provinces and territories, as well as police forces. With clear statistics, we'll be able to see where we're going.

There are no doubts about financing. Although the $20 million in funding is not part of this bill, it's still a way to include the notion of what funding the federal government will provide for programs to encourage prostitutes to give up prostitution and to promote their health and safety.

That would be a good way for us to include this aspect, which was mentioned several times by witnesses we heard from last week, regardless of whether they came from or what their position on this issue was.

As for transparency, it'll be very important to find out what the $20 million over five years will be spent on, who will benefit from this funding and what impact it will have on prostitution. The minister has the ambitious objective of putting an end to prostitution in Canada. That'll give us a good idea about whether that can be achieved before 2020, 2050 or 3000.

The minister could send a copy of the report to every member, so we could see and so we could do what's necessary. I think that's prudent and it doesn't hurt anyone. It would show that the government is following up on this issue, especially since we have heard so much about the victims of prostitution in Canada. It's important to have this kind of information.

[Bob Dechert, Conservative, Mississauga—Erindale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am very pleased to be able to move the amendment G-4 to clause 15 of Bill C-36.

Mr. Chair, in my considered view what we heard from the majority of the witnesses last week is that Bill C-36 is a paradigm shift in how Canada views and deals with prostitution.

We heard horrendous stories that should never have happened in our country. I think of Bridget Perrier, Timea Nagy, and Katarina MacLeod, and all the others who came forward and told us the awful, terrible stories of what happened to them, what went on for years and years. Timea Nagy told us how she desperately hoped that somebody would rescue her.

There are victims and I am convinced that many of the women and young men who are engaged in this practice are victims. I believe it could be a majority. We certainly heard significant stories. But even if it's a minority and not the majority, we can't sit idly by, Mr. Chair, and not do something.

The Supreme Court put it to us, as members of Parliament, that we have the right to do something. It's for Parliament to devise a new approach, that's what we're here today to do. By criminalizing for the first time in Canadian history the purchase of sexual services, the commodification of the bodies of the unfortunate people who are trapped in this trade, we're finally addressing this ugly situation that has gone on in Canada for far too long.

I have no doubt that there are those who freely choose to do this. I have no doubt that there are some who have all the necessary power in the relationship with their client to do it in a safe way. In my view, those individuals will now have an opportunity to do it in a safe way, and that's directly in response to Bedford.

But if one Bridget Perrier is out there today, we have to do something. All we're talking about in clause 15 is a tiny piece of real estate in this vast country of ours, I believe the second largest country in terms of geography in the world, and one of the least densely populated countries in the world. We're saying to those individuals who choose to go out on the street because for some reason they don't wish to go inside where they could do it safely, in these narrow circumstances, let our children have their space.

We heard from many technical experts who said there was some vagueness, there was some opportunity for misinterpretation of the provision as it's currently drafted. What we did was listen to those experts, Mr. Chair. Although we heard from the Assistant Deputy Minister of Justice, a person I have great respect for, who is a criminal law specialist who said that the distinction around where persons who are under the age of 18 may reasonably be expected to be present is a relatively narrow distinction and one that it well understood in law, we have taken steps today to clarify, in response to those who said that there was some vagueness, some ambiguity.

What we're saying today is that there are some places in Canada that are sacrosanct, and I do not wish to make any woman who is trapped in this ugly trade, a victim. We're saying to them—and we're giving them good notice—stay out of the playgrounds, stay out of the schoolyards, and stay away from the front of the daycare centres. If you go there we're going to ask the law enforcement officials of this country to remove you. That's a simple request. I don't think it's hard to understand.

My friends over on the other side say that the only people we heard from who need this power are the police. Well, guess what? They are 50% of the equation here. When we have done our job here, when this bill becomes law, we are all going to go home, and then we're going to ask the law enforcement officials of Canada to enforce this law. They need tools to do their job. We heard from them; they are not interested in targeting the victims here. They want to help the victims, and sometimes the victims need to be removed from a dangerous situation.

I'm sorry I had to learn about this, that I had to know that when women are being forced to do this by an abusive, violent pimp, he's not standing right next to her on the street, because that would scare off the customer. He's around the corner. He's in the vicinity, and he's watching. If she willingly speaks to the police officer, she's going to be beaten up later, because that drives customers away, and that's not good for business.

In those circumstances, the police need every tool we can give them to separate that person and take them in. Sometimes it will be obvious to the police officer that the person has been injured, obvious to them that they are under the influence of drugs or alcohol, that they are not making good choices. If they just go up to them and say “I want to help you; work with me”, the pimp is going to beat them up. That pimp is going to do terrible violence to them and continue to force them into this trade. But the tools we're giving them in clause 15, in the new section 213, will allow police officers to take them out of that situation, take them to a safe place, and introduce them to people who can help them.

Talk about fairies dancing on the head of a pin. My goodness gracious—only in school grounds, playgrounds, day care centres.... And my friends on the other side don't even want to go there: they are happy that the prostitutes stroll through the playground at 3 p.m. looking for customers.

I have news for them. I don't think the customers are going to be there. The whole concept that customers are going to be driven away into the dark shadows.... In my view, Mr. Chair, the customers are always in the shadows, because they don't want their family, their friends, their co-workers, or their neighbours to see what they are doing. Nothing that we do here today is going to make it okay, from the perspective of the purchaser of sex, to be out on Wellington Street this afternoon, or on Yonge Street in Toronto, or on Robson Street in Vancouver. They are not going to go there. They are already in the shadows.

What we need to say to the sex workers is to do it in a safe way: get off the street; make a choice. If you have free choice—and we hear that they have free choice, but everyone tells us that being out on the street is the most dangerous thing you can possibly do—please choose to do it in a safe way. We're giving you that power. The police are not going to harass you for being in your own apartment, for advertising your own services, but this provision is about giving the innocent children of Canada a place to be children, where they don't have to see sex transactions being negotiated a few feet from the swing set.

We're trying to make it tighter, and we're trying to respond to those who said there's a concern about how the courts would interpret this provision. In my view, the amendment that is before us here will do that; it will make it easier for the courts to interpret, and therefore give the police the tools they need to rescue victims who need to be rescued.

For those reasons we'll be supporting the amendment.

[Françoise Boivin, NDP, Gatineau, QC]

I definitely hear Ms. Smith and Mr. Wilks. We are not, I repeat, on the trafficking or recruiting section.

It says in proposed subsection 213(1.1) of clause 15 that:

(1.1) Everyone is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who communicates with any person—for the purpose of offering or providing sexual services for consideration—in a public place, or in any place open to public view, that is or is next to a place where persons under the age of 18 can reasonably be expected to be present.

This is the clause that touches on the prostitute, the sex workers, solely. It's not the recruiting. It's who we've heard about from every side of the equation as being victims.

If I hear Mr. Wilks correctly, they're victims up to a certain point. If they cross the line and do it in a public place, that they define as a school, a church, and so on

a day care centre, schoolyard or playground nearby,

in their amendment G-4, then they're not victims any more.

That's basically what we have to understand. All the rest is covered in other sections, either through Bill C-36, against the pimps, the johns, or through the trafficking sections that are in the Criminal Code, either with some amendments in Bill C-36 or the actual case.

So as for all of the explanations that I heard from Ms. Smith, of course course nobody wants to see a kid being prostituted in a school, but this is not what it is about. It's about whether or not we want to victimize the person in one of these aspects. That's the question we have to ask ourselves as committee members. What I'm hearing from the government is clear. Finally it is clear: prostitutes are not victims any more when they do it at that point in time.

While Ms. Smith says that policemen do not usually arrest prostitutes, that might be true in certain parts of Canada.... Not necessarily, because when there is the actual section.... We heard some of your witnesses come to the committee on the last day and say that they wanted section 213 to stay for the sole reason that it would help

investigation. They could catch the person. If they can't arrest them, it could be hard to know who is behind them, who was the john, who was the pimp, and so on.

Some police officers would like to have that provision at their disposal, since it could be useful for them. Except that almost all the witnesses told us no. They told us that these are victims.

At least the message is clear. I can't fault you since your message is clear. These people are victims, to a certain point, as long as it doesn't interfere with protecting communities and it isn't conducted in certain well-defined areas.

What a ridiculous concept. I think we've heard everything on this subject.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Quite clearly, Bill C-36 is the first bill we've ever had in Canadian Parliament that is compassionate towards the victims of prostitution and human trafficking, and for the first time, money is there to help them exit.

In Canada, or in any other country, children are the perpetrators’ prime targets. Why? Because they get a higher price. All the components around this bill support and are really well aware of the victimization of the prostitutes and trafficked people. That's the whole essence of this bill. That, and the targeting of the johns and pimps, criminalizing the johns and pimps for buying sex.

It's a great step forward, one that I think this committee can be extremely proud of. I commend Madam Boivin for talking about victimization because that's precisely what Bill C-36 is aimed at preventing. It will also prevent pimps and the johns having the opportunity to help prostitutes solicit in front of schools. In actual fact, in many cases that I've personally worked on, children have been solicited in school, on school grounds. There have even been narcs put in the school itself to look for the vulnerable people so that the traffickers could traffic them. I had an incredible case, out of Edmonton, of a young girl trafficked to Toronto just from that. She was a victim. But she was forced into prostitution from the school itself.

It is a very wise, balanced move for this bill to say, very specifically, that schoolyards and places where children are, are just off limits. Nobody can do that. It's not harming the prostitutes at all. In fact, very few police forces today arrest prostitutes because they recognize them as victims. They ask them to move along.

As MP Dechert, the parliamentary secretary, said, children have a right to their innocence and they have a right not to be targeted by the johns. Johns don't care. They don't ask how old a person is. And they do target the younger ones, the younger-looking ones.

I think that this is a well-balanced way. The argument that it's victimizing the prostitutes is absolutely absurd. For the first time, this whole bill, and the essence of this whole bill, recognizes the tragedy these victims go through.

In closing, I think we have to be very mindful that we don't want anything like this around our schools. It's just not something that we want to happen. Having the provision where we single-out places specifically where children are is a very wise and balanced move for the Canadian public.

This is a very well written, well-balanced bill, in both these regards.