Thank you, Mr. Chair, we will not be supporting this amendment. In our view, it's unnecessary because both the third and fourth exceptions of the material benefit offence would apply to persons who provide the types of services or goods mentioned in the amendment. Specifically if the service or good were offered to the general public, the third exception would apply such as in the case of a pharmacist. If the service or good were not offered to the general public, the fourth exception could apply, as in the case of a friend who offers protective services. That my colleague will find in proposed paragraph 286.2(4)(d) of the bill, which says:
in consideration for a service or good that they do not offer to the general public but that they offered or provided to the person from whose sexual services the benefit is derived, if they did not counsel or encourage that person to provide sexual services and the benefit is proportionate to the value of the service or good.
In other words, we're removing the exploitation part of any such arrangements and if the person providing the services to the individual sex worker is doing so on reasonable commercial terms at fair market value, they would not be criminalized in that situation.
So on that basis, Mr. Chair, we will not be supporting this amendment.