Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank our last group of witnesses for joining us today.
Bear with me, please, because I have a couple of lawyers, and next Tuesday we're going to start the clause-by-clause.
We are dealing with a piece of legislation, so we have to address Bill C-36 section by section. There will be votes on each and every one of those clauses, so we need to be sure—in my case, anyway, that's how I do my job and I'm sure all my colleagues are the same—that the clauses we vote on are sound, do what they're supposed to do, and are constitutional and charter compliant. So you can see the challenge we have.
So having the benefit of two lawyers.... After four days of testimony and hearing lots of stories that are heartbreaking, when I go back to the legislation I will do a job for the next five minutes that might be very boring on TV, but for me, very important.
To this day I'm still wondering about a couple of things. We heard that the preamble is important. As a lawyer, I know a preamble can give a bit of
the purpose of a bill, and provide certain explanations for the courts that will have to deal with interpretation issues. Titles and sections must also be considered, and especially the Criminal Code.
I am very familiar with the way criminal lawyers work, and I know that any argument that can be debated will be tested before the court. This much is known. Even the minister is aware that his bill will be tested.
So here is my question about that. I am looking at the new section 213, in response to the Bedford case. That provision is still where it was before, more specifically in the part on disorderly houses, gaming and betting. Unless I am mistaken, it is still in part VII, under section 213. The heading was changed, and clause 14 states the following:
offences in relation to offering, providing or obtaining sexual services for consideration
This is the most problematic provision. We have almost unanimously been told that we should decriminalize prostitutes activities' because they are victims and they cannot be both victims and criminals simultaneously.
Section 213 also states the following:
Everyone is guilty of an offence [...] for the purpose of offering, providing or obtaining sexual services for consideration.
Further on, the new section 286 follows the provision on offences against individuals and reputations. This provision covers kidnapping, human trafficking, hostage taking and abduction. This is the meatiest part on criminal offences relating to the purchase of sexual services, while section 213 already covers the issue, as I mentioned, but in a more summary fashion.
On the one hand, why was this offence in section 213 maintained? How do you interpret this? Is that provision in conflict with section 286? On the other hand, should the new part introduced by the minister, which contains section 286, be interpreted so as to limit the notion of buying in a context of abductions or human trafficking given the heading of the section it is under?
I am wondering if this is clear for you, as it is not clear for me. There is room for debate, and someone could say that they do not interpret the legislation as we do, and that they feel that no offence is involved in purchasing a sexual service when there is consent.
That's one of my big dilemmas right now on how to interpret the bill.
So to start, I'm addressing it to Mr. Kirkup.