I can explain the amendment. It does create a separate legal test for exploitation, so the police would have to decide which definition they would go with. Previous witnesses have correctly pointed out that much of this language is derived from article 3 of the United Nations trafficking protocol and, as has already been pointed out, that language has not been judicially interpreted in Canada so there really is a problem with vagueness and potential overbreadth here with some of this language. It could confuse the operation of the law, and it raises potential charter considerations.
On the point of the words “labour services”, the current provision in section 279.04 is intended, of course, to cover all types of labour or services including sexual services. Bill C-452 does refer to sexual services in the separate legal test it provides and, of course, that relates back to the prostitution provisions, which also refer to sexual services.
This is a term that has meaning in our law, is intelligible, and has been judicially interpreted.