So it is unanimous.
Ms. Big Canoe, everyone here stated their objection to section 213, which gives the police the ability to continue to charge—and it continues to make it an offence for those involved in the sex trade to communicate for the purpose. Everyone here agrees that it's bad policy. You're the only one who has made a comment on its constitutionality, and that, as you indicated, formed the basis of your case before the Supreme Court of Canada.
Given that your position before the Supreme Court of Canada was that the old provision was unconstitutional, what we've heard before this committee from all lawyers who have testified, except for those who worked for the Department of Justice and the minister, and the lawyer for the Evangelical Fellowship who disagreed with her client, was that the change in the objectives will save the new provision.
I think I understood your opening statement to say that you disagree with that position—that the change in the objectives will not make this new provision constitutionally sound. Is that right?