I'll try to do so as well.
Those are always interesting avenues, I think, if I can add a comment, because....
It is important for the accused to be able to confront the person who accuses them, but this must be made a little easier in certain types of cases. I have had enough of people not testifying because they are terrorized.
I initially had a few questions about the bill. My questions were similar to what Ms. Murray was saying earlier about the presumption. You answered the questions about the presumption at the hearings on Monday and in your two appearances.
I do not think the argument is valid. Surely this involves a reverse burden of proof, but, in the circumstances, and since this is already provided for in the code, it is not as though we were inventing something. So I am comfortable on this point.
As for the issue of consecutive sentences, I do not know whether you read the evidence of the police officers who appeared before us on Monday. Mr. Mai said this earlier, and that is one of the things that Detective Sergeant Monchamp said.
I am a practical woman. I very much like legislation. As a lawyer, I have spent my entire career working with legislation. There is the practical side of the matter.
Detective Sergeant Monchamp said that, regardless of the number of consecutive sentences, and despite the best of intentions, one fact remains, and that is that we will see a lot of plea bargaining. I made a joke on this point while he made that comment.
He said that an accused facing eight counts could receive a minimum sentence of six years in prison and consecutive sentences. I would be very surprised if he received a sentence of 48 years in prison upon a review of his file.
As he said, there are so many ways to counter all that. So are we really achieving our goals? Some are concerned about the imposition of consecutive sentences. That is the danger we face because the courts will be handing down shorter sentences that will nevertheless yield virtually the same result as previously.
To my mind, the elephant in the room is the very concept of prostitution. I have not yet formed an idea on the subject, and I am still open in that regard. On the one hand, people are advocating for the rights of sex workers, and, on the other hand, we are trying to pass this act. How far can we go with this kind of bill in a society where certain types of behaviour are not necessarily deemed unacceptable? I wonder about that, and I am curious to hear what you have to say on the subject.