Bill C-36 is supposed to respond to the Bedford ruling; hence the sense of urgency on the minister's part. Is that correct? I am just trying to put things into context to make sure we are all on the same page.
In Bedford, the Supreme Court ruled that the provisions I just mentioned jeopardize the health and safety of sex workers because they criminalize what those workers do and create a sense of insecurity and danger since they must carry out their activities in places that are out of sight.
That said, the minister is bound to respond to the Bedford ruling. What process did the department follow in ensuring that response? Did you examine different models, or rather, did you consider only one when you were drafting Bill C-36? Did you consider decriminalizing or legalizing these activities? Did you analyze the Nordic model? How exactly did you arrive at Bill C-36?