That was the concern I was trying to bring up with Mr. Dechert as well. I don't know what data the minister is trying to quote from, but it is erroneous.
The licensed adult entertainment clubs currently, the entertainers who work there, should not be in the same category. The reason is—and it's from a market demand perspective—that 75% of customers who go into a licensed venue, which I invite you to, Madam Péclet, as well tonight, go into the establishment but do not get a private dance.
They're there for three reasons. One is to socialize. These are party atmospheres as well. Socializing for the entertainers is very important. Two is to simply relax, and three is to watch something. Only 25% would get a private dance.
We know that the number of actual intercourse or sex acts that would happen in private dance is minimal because of the number of charges. Plus, the types of women who work as entertainers currently are students. There's an increasing number of students working there who can make their money lap dancing and don't have to be prostitutes, do intercourse, etc. So we know the demand is not there. We know we do an adequate job, a very good job. We actually work together in educating the workforce where sexe est interdit, as well. So we know it's a good opportunity.
It was unfair of the minister to group the licensed adult entertainment clubs in the category. It's unfair for them to group the women who work in the same category. If you look at the newspapers...and it is a bit of ignorance that this was done. The newspapers call it “adult entertainment”, and licensed adult entertainment clubs are strip clubs.
This whole business about a massage parlour.... It's nothing more than a grey area. We know what a massage is. What organ, what part of their body are they massaging? We know—