To either Mr. Piragoff or Ms. Levman, on this question of advertising, a number of commentators have got it wrong. I know there are some journalists in the room today who got it wrong in their columns. They made statements like, because this bill makes it illegal to have any form of advertising, they're going to force prostitutes out into the street to advertise their services and, therefore, the bill is unconstitutional.
You pointed out 286.2(4)b), which says that someone can provide their own advertising for their own services and can pay someone on commercial terms to help them with that. That clearly allows the individual to offer their own sexual services. There seems to be some concern about what the advertisement can say. For certain types of advertisements, the prosecutor can apply to the court to have those advertisements removed if they define sexual services in a certain way.
I've taken a look at some of these advertisements, and anyone who has access to the Internet can see them, and typically what they say is rather sad, rather degrading. It says sometimes the person's name, their age, their ethnicity, their hair colour, their eye colour, their bust size, their waist size, their height, and certain other physical characteristics. Then it will give an hourly rate, i.e. so much for half an hour, so much for two hours. If that ad runs, as it does today—you can find it online in many places and in many newspapers across Canada—is that something that would be caught by the provisions of Bill C-36?