Evidence of meeting #44 for Justice and Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was prostitution.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
I call this meeting back to order after suspension.
All non-stationary cameras have to be removed.
The next item on the agenda is G-4, that Bill C-36, in clause 15, be amended by replacing lines 13 to 15 on page 8 with the following:
open to public view, that is or is next to a school ground, playground or daycare centre.
Does the government want to talk to G-4 or move it, whatever—
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am very pleased to be able to move the amendment G-4 to clause 15 of Bill C-36.
Mr. Chair, in my considered view what we heard from the majority of the witnesses last week is that Bill C-36 is a paradigm shift in how Canada views and deals with prostitution.
We heard horrendous stories that should never have happened in our country. I think of Bridget Perrier, Timea Nagy, and Katarina MacLeod, and all the others who came forward and told us the awful, terrible stories of what happened to them, what went on for years and years. Timea Nagy told us how she desperately hoped that somebody would rescue her.
There are victims and I am convinced that many of the women and young men who are engaged in this practice are victims. I believe it could be a majority. We certainly heard significant stories. But even if it's a minority and not the majority, we can't sit idly by, Mr. Chair, and not do something.
The Supreme Court put it to us, as members of Parliament, that we have the right to do something. It's for Parliament to devise a new approach, that's what we're here today to do. By criminalizing for the first time in Canadian history the purchase of sexual services, the commodification of the bodies of the unfortunate people who are trapped in this trade, we're finally addressing this ugly situation that has gone on in Canada for far too long.
I have no doubt that there are those who freely choose to do this. I have no doubt that there are some who have all the necessary power in the relationship with their client to do it in a safe way. In my view, those individuals will now have an opportunity to do it in a safe way, and that's directly in response to Bedford.
But if one Bridget Perrier is out there today, we have to do something. All we're talking about in clause 15 is a tiny piece of real estate in this vast country of ours, I believe the second largest country in terms of geography in the world, and one of the least densely populated countries in the world. We're saying to those individuals who choose to go out on the street because for some reason they don't wish to go inside where they could do it safely, in these narrow circumstances, let our children have their space.
We heard from many technical experts who said there was some vagueness, there was some opportunity for misinterpretation of the provision as it's currently drafted. What we did was listen to those experts, Mr. Chair. Although we heard from the Assistant Deputy Minister of Justice, a person I have great respect for, who is a criminal law specialist who said that the distinction around where persons who are under the age of 18 may reasonably be expected to be present is a relatively narrow distinction and one that it well understood in law, we have taken steps today to clarify, in response to those who said that there was some vagueness, some ambiguity.
What we're saying today is that there are some places in Canada that are sacrosanct, and I do not wish to make any woman who is trapped in this ugly trade, a victim. We're saying to them—and we're giving them good notice—stay out of the playgrounds, stay out of the schoolyards, and stay away from the front of the daycare centres. If you go there we're going to ask the law enforcement officials of this country to remove you. That's a simple request. I don't think it's hard to understand.
My friends over on the other side say that the only people we heard from who need this power are the police. Well, guess what? They are 50% of the equation here. When we have done our job here, when this bill becomes law, we are all going to go home, and then we're going to ask the law enforcement officials of Canada to enforce this law. They need tools to do their job. We heard from them; they are not interested in targeting the victims here. They want to help the victims, and sometimes the victims need to be removed from a dangerous situation.
I'm sorry I had to learn about this, that I had to know that when women are being forced to do this by an abusive, violent pimp, he's not standing right next to her on the street, because that would scare off the customer. He's around the corner. He's in the vicinity, and he's watching. If she willingly speaks to the police officer, she's going to be beaten up later, because that drives customers away, and that's not good for business.
In those circumstances, the police need every tool we can give them to separate that person and take them in. Sometimes it will be obvious to the police officer that the person has been injured, obvious to them that they are under the influence of drugs or alcohol, that they are not making good choices. If they just go up to them and say “I want to help you; work with me”, the pimp is going to beat them up. That pimp is going to do terrible violence to them and continue to force them into this trade. But the tools we're giving them in clause 15, in the new section 213, will allow police officers to take them out of that situation, take them to a safe place, and introduce them to people who can help them.
Talk about fairies dancing on the head of a pin. My goodness gracious—only in school grounds, playgrounds, day care centres.... And my friends on the other side don't even want to go there: they are happy that the prostitutes stroll through the playground at 3 p.m. looking for customers.
I have news for them. I don't think the customers are going to be there. The whole concept that customers are going to be driven away into the dark shadows.... In my view, Mr. Chair, the customers are always in the shadows, because they don't want their family, their friends, their co-workers, or their neighbours to see what they are doing. Nothing that we do here today is going to make it okay, from the perspective of the purchaser of sex, to be out on Wellington Street this afternoon, or on Yonge Street in Toronto, or on Robson Street in Vancouver. They are not going to go there. They are already in the shadows.
What we need to say to the sex workers is to do it in a safe way: get off the street; make a choice. If you have free choice—and we hear that they have free choice, but everyone tells us that being out on the street is the most dangerous thing you can possibly do—please choose to do it in a safe way. We're giving you that power. The police are not going to harass you for being in your own apartment, for advertising your own services, but this provision is about giving the innocent children of Canada a place to be children, where they don't have to see sex transactions being negotiated a few feet from the swing set.
We're trying to make it tighter, and we're trying to respond to those who said there's a concern about how the courts would interpret this provision. In my view, the amendment that is before us here will do that; it will make it easier for the courts to interpret, and therefore give the police the tools they need to rescue victims who need to be rescued.
For those reasons we'll be supporting the amendment.
11:15 a.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
My God, there's so much to say.
I would understand the argument, if it were all about the buying close to the school and so on. The problem with the clause is that they are victimizing the prostitute, even if they limit the description of where they're going to be victims.
I now understand that this amendment is solely on the basis of the people, especially children, who might be in school or
in a day care centre or on a playground.
It's to avoid these people—these young children—seeing what is going on.
But, again, the disposition reads: Everyone is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction who communicates with any person—for the purpose of offering or providing sexual services for consideration—in a public place, or in any place
—and then comes in the suggested amendment of the government—
open to public view, that is or is next to a school ground, playground or daycare centre.
I'm surprised that the parliamentary secretary learned about what happening in the world with trafficking here at committee. The stories of Ms. Perrier and others that we heard are stories that, if you open your papers and see how human trafficking and prostitution in those circumstances are happening everywhere in the world, are humongous. There are billions of dollars—we heard about it in the committee—that circulate in that industry.
I hate to use the word “industry”, when it's such a criminal action. This is something that happens for which we need to provide our law enforcement officials with tools to address it.
This is not what it's about. The way they are recruited into that situation is more about whether we believe they are victims or not.
When are they victims and when do they stop being victims? That is the problem with the logic of the government on that issue.
The Supreme Court said that the legislator had the power to make decisions about where and how prostitution may be conducted. We need to look at the full context. Every provision of the bill needs to be read in its entirety.
The government tells us that it was listening to the Supreme Court and that it wanted to get people off the street because in the Bedford decision, it was shown that street prostitution was by far more dangerous than prostitution carried out in a person's home, behind closed doors. This type of prostitution provides an environment in which prostitutes can get information on the type of clients they are meeting, conduct checks and maybe even have security guards. We want to ensure that the definition of pimp isn't as broad and vague as it was before.
The Supreme Court did not give us, as legislators, the mandate to do whatever we wanted, as though we'd been given a blank check. The court said:
Concluding that each of the challenged provisions violates the Charter does not mean that Parliament is precluded from imposing limits on where and how prostitution may be conducted, as long as it does so in a way that does not infringe the constitutional rights of prostitutes. The regulation of prostitution is a complex and delicate matter.
This is the proof of that. It's up to the legislator to act if appropriate.
I want to make a point of saying this because the impression always seems to be that members on the front bench had the duty to introduce a bill by December 2014 if they felt it was appropriate. They certainly felt it was appropriate to come up with a new approach. However, does this new approach integrate the various aspects of the current system, as requested by the Supreme Court?
I'd like to point out another very important passage from the Supreme Court decision. The court talked about the notion of qualitative instead of quantitative. I'll explain. We know that a large percentage of prostitutes don't necessarily participate voluntarily. I don't have the exact figures, and it also depends on what statistics you look at and the models used.
We know that the vast majority of people who work in this field are under the control of a pimp or are addicted to drugs or alcohol. No one has denied that.
However, in its decision, the Supreme Court said that it is a matter of protection—even of a single person. You have to read all of these provisions. I think that there's a danger when you start picking and choosing what to read, as the parliamentary secretary is doing.
They are saying that they simply want to prevent young people from witnessing prostitution in their schoolyard, near a playground or elsewhere. It's hard to say that anyone is against that, but I want to clarify for those listening that this isn't what the clause says. It doesn't reference that at all. Instead it asks whether someone is being victimized. That's the only question asked.
The Conservatives' wonderful bill is supposed to push people to conduct these activities in private, but we'll have to see what happens with the provisions on advertising, which may not necessarily be a big deal, and we'll have to see what happens with the fact that johns will not be able to purchase these services. They can't purchase these services, unless the parliamentary secretary tells me that what goes on behind closed doors is private and that police officers won't be showing up wherever the prostitute is. This is creating a rather strange system.
In short, the government is choosing to victimize sex workers with its amendment. Even though it has limited the victimization, in this context, prostitutes will still be victims.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you very much.
We're on G-4, the government amendment to clause 15, and I see no other speakers to the amendment.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Is there any further discussion on clause 15 as amended?
(Clause 15 as amended agreed to)
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Now we move to NDP-3. This is actually a new clause 15.1.
NDP-3 would amend Bill C-36 by adding, after line 15 on page 8, the following:
15.1 The Act is amended by adding the following after section 213: 213.1 (1) The Minister of Justice must, at the end of each year, prepare a report that includes (a) a general summary of the impact of the Act on the health and safety of those who engage in prostitution; (b) statistics on prostitution in Canada; and (c) details on the funding provided by the federal government for prostitution exit programs and programs in support of the health and safety of those engaging in prostitution.
(2) The Minister must cause the report to be laid before each House of Parliament on or before March 31 following the end of the year or, if a House is not sitting, on any of the next 15 days that it is sitting after that date.
That is in order. It is a new clause.
The floor is yours, Madame Boivin.
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think that'll be very important because, as they say:
The writing is on the wall.
It's quite clear where Bill C-36 is headed. Nevertheless, we'll keep working to try to get the Conservatives to listen to reason. This is a very important issue, so it's important to have this type of report—a summary of the impact of this legislation on the health and safety of prostitutes.
This follows up on the essence of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Bedford, which is the health and safety of prostitutes.
Since the government did not think it was a good idea to declare all forms of prostitution illegal—whether it's the purchase or sale of sexual services—it's leaving the door open and it often uses the argument that they can do this in this place or that place. We need to read between the lines that prostitution is partially allowed. We'll have to see what the impact will be.
It'll be interesting to see statistics on prostitution in Canada. When I say prostitution, I don't mean human trafficking. I mean prostitution in Canada. This will certainly bring about increased awareness of the agencies that are working together—the provinces and territories, as well as police forces. With clear statistics, we'll be able to see where we're going.
There are no doubts about financing. Although the $20 million in funding is not part of this bill, it's still a way to include the notion of what funding the federal government will provide for programs to encourage prostitutes to give up prostitution and to promote their health and safety.
That would be a good way for us to include this aspect, which was mentioned several times by witnesses we heard from last week, regardless of whether they came from or what their position on this issue was.
As for transparency, it'll be very important to find out what the $20 million over five years will be spent on, who will benefit from this funding and what impact it will have on prostitution. The minister has the ambitious objective of putting an end to prostitution in Canada. That'll give us a good idea about whether that can be achieved before 2020, 2050 or 3000.
The minister could send a copy of the report to every member, so we could see and so we could do what's necessary. I think that's prudent and it doesn't hurt anyone. It would show that the government is following up on this issue, especially since we have heard so much about the victims of prostitution in Canada. It's important to have this kind of information.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank my colleague for proposing this amendment.
In my view, this amendment is impractical and unnecessary. The Criminal Code only exceptionally requires annual reporting, in relation to provisions that are surreptitious by nature, such as wiretap and terrorism offences.
It is not appropriate, in my view, to legislatively require annual reporting of statistics, research, and funding. Moreover, I'd point out that it's unnecessary to require annual reporting on funding because funded projects over $25,000 are proactively disclosed every three months, in accordance with Treasury Board policies, and other funding information is always available on request. For those reasons, we will not be supporting this amendment.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Pierre Jacob NDP Brome—Missisquoi, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to add, as my colleague said, that the much talked-about $20 million over five years is not actually part of the bill. The majority of witnesses, from all sides, told us that it is a drop in the bucket. That $20 million needs to be increased.
They also told us that there need to be adequate social measures that touch on mental health, addiction, poverty and affordable housing.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I am having a hard time understanding the parliamentary secretary.
We may have some information, but it would be even more clear and precise if we knew the impact that the government thinks Bill C-36 will have on protecting communities and those who are being exploited.
I would like to point out to the parliamentary secretary that the preamble, which will in no way be included in the Criminal Code, will serve only as a guideline. It provides an explanation and gives an overview. It will surely serve as a guide for the courts when they have to rule on the practical aspects in criminal proceedings. It will be useful in that way.
In fact, it is part of our powers. Committees, and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights in particular, have fairly far-reaching powers. We are the legislative committee that acts as a shield of sorts for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada. He has very clear obligations with respect to the Constitution and protecting the rights set out in the Charter.
It is legitimate to ask that the Minister of Justice produce this report, which seemingly exists, according to some of what my colleague was saying. I think it would be important to compile all of this in a report so as to provide some clarity about what the government aims to do, namely the short-term abolition of prostitution, pure and simple. I hope that is the case, for him at least.
It is surprising to see that someone is opposing virtue in the context of Bill C-36.
11:30 a.m.
NDP
Ève Péclet NDP La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC
I would simply like to add to what my colleague said.
If the government is certain in its approach, saying that prostitution will not be as prevalent under this bill, then as parliamentarians, we cannot determine if the law will be effective unless we know whether the government's approach and the bill's objective are working. We have a right to know. It is important.
We often talk about transparency. It is important to show that we want to work towards increased transparency. We want to know, for this bill as it stands and based on the government's consultations, whether this approach will help the government reach its goal, be it to abolish prostitution or decrease its prevalence. However, no matter what the objective, Canadians and parliamentarians have the right to know if the measures being taken by the Conservatives and the legislation they choose to pass will really work.
11:35 a.m.
Liberal
Sean Casey Liberal Charlottetown, PE
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I support the amendment. The government's position in this regard—give them credit for this—is consistent. We tried to get before this committee the benefit of some social science research that the people of Canada paid for, and the minister and the committee members opposite suppressed it.
We now have before us a motion that requires the collection of data that will better inform future governments, future committees, in a matter such as this, and the government opposes it.
What we know is that this law is going to pass. It's going to be on the books until it's amended or withdrawn by this or a future government, or until it's struck down by the courts.
Until those things happen, I would suggest it makes good sense to collect evidence on the effectiveness of the measures that are being brought into force, so that future legislative efforts are better informed. It's called evidence-based public policy. It's something we support and we will continue to support.
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Is there anything further to amendment NDP-3?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clauses 16 and 17 agreed to)
(On clause 18)
11:35 a.m.
Conservative
11:35 a.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
I want to use clause 18, first of all, to thank our Bibliothèque du Parlement for all of their work. Especially when we're talking about mandatory minimum sentences, I'm always curious to see the jurisprudence on the issue and what type of sentences have already been awarded and so on.
Thank you to Dominique and his colleague for their great work in a fast-paced fashion, in giving me that information, to show me that there is a wide variety and range on trafficking. It could go anywhere from between two years to seven or eight years, and so on.
I think that everybody around this table strongly detests
—anything that has to do with human trafficking. Mrs. Smith can speak to that. If I am not mistaken, when she introduced her bill a few years ago, the House passed it unanimously. I say that without prejudice but, in any case, it received our full support. There is nothing more disgusting than one individual who exploits another. Every provision in the Criminal Code that addresses this type of situation and this scourge is important and deserves our support. The sentences need to be solid.
I am always distraught when I see that sentences vary between two and eight years. There needs to be more consistency at times. I am not a fan of mandatory minimum sentences because they do not allow the courts to be analytical. They also take away the courts' ability to use discretion. I am not talking about being able to do whatever they want; I am talking about applying the facts of the case to the person who committed the crime and so on.
However, there are crimes that are not that easy to forgive. It is not surprising that offences involving kidnapping or human trafficking are subject to stiffer sentences. People need to know that. In this case, we have been talking primarily about prostitution, but there are aspects of these amendments that touch on human trafficking and sentencing. That leads me to another comment.
When I spoke about slowing the process down, I was not talking about slowing it down for no reason in particular. There are many parts to Bill C-36. I have the impression that it has been reduced to stating what prostitution is exactly. That's it, that's all. There has not been much focus on the concept of human trafficking in Bill C-36. There is also the issue of the DNA that will be collected. There are many other aspects that we will not have time to cover during our analysis because of the time we have and the number of witnesses we have heard from. That is, perhaps, my only regret.
All of that said, I would like to thank you. You are doing a wonderful job helping us with this so that we can better understand the legal aspects. The work of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is quite legal in nature.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Mike Wallace
Thank you very much for those comments.
Are there any other comments to clause 18?
(Clause 18 agreed to)
On clause 19, is there any discussion?
(Clause 19 agreed to)
(On clause 20)
Now we have a number of amendments to clause 20, starting with NDP-4, that Bill C-36, in Clause 20, be amended by replacing line 21 on page 10 with the following:
286.1 (1) Everyone who, in any place, while committing an offence under section 266, 267, 271, 272, 279, 279.01 or 279.011
This is in order. As happened a few minutes ago with G-4, I wouldn't say there was a defining or narrowing, but an understanding of the scope of where the clause—in that case, clause 15—was related. This also does a scoping or a narrowing, and it relates to other offences that are listed in the Criminal Code.
Madame Boivin, the floor is yours.
11:40 a.m.
NDP
Françoise Boivin NDP Gatineau, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank you for finding that this amendment was in order. I appreciate that. After everything that has happened in committee and after hearing from witnesses, this allows me to come back a bit to the crux of some of my concerns.
We spoke earlier about section 213. This section is found in Part VII of the Criminal Code, which deals with disorderly houses, gaming and betting. I realize that the government has changed the heading, but this is not a new part of the legislation. It still falls under Part VII, which deals with disorderly houses, gaming and betting.
I am trying to understand what the government set out to do with Bill C-36, apart from protecting communities and ultimately putting an end to prostitution. Solicitation and communication under section 213 falls under the part of the Criminal Code that deals with disorderly houses, gaming and betting. Although it is being said that such behaviour is an offence against the person, it remains in that part of the legislation.
Clause 20 of the bill comes after section 286 of the Criminal Code. Now we are really talking about Part VIII, which deals with offences against the person and reputation.
There is something rather fascinating about the government's approach. Section 286 of the Criminal Code, to which clause 20 is being added as a new provision, reads:
In proceedings in respect of an offence under sections 280 to 283, it is not a defence to any charge that a young person consented to or suggested any conduct of the accused.
This is how the current Part VIII, which deals with offences against the person and reputation, ends. Then, there are a number of new provisions.
Perhaps I misunderstood the government's vision. However, I get the impression from witnesses, particularly those on the government's list, that buying sexual services is clearly an offence in the context of human trafficking, abduction and kidnapping, which is the purpose of this new provision. The offence can be prosecuted in two ways: by summary conviction or simply by an indictment with sometimes fairly harsh sentences.
I believe that committee members will unanimously agree to condemn the act of purchasing sexual services from anyone who has been the victim of human trafficking and exploitation.
We would like to clarify something that the government was not clear about, despite the fact that it told us that it would allow safe forms of prostitution, as defined in the Bedford case. We really want to stress that we are talking about sexual services that are purchased in the context described in section 279 and subsequent sections under the heading that deals with kidnapping, trafficking in persons, hostage taking and abduction. I imagine that means something if an amendment was made to a provision.
It just seems logical to me. It seems to go without saying that purchasing sexual services in a context of exploitation and human trafficking is fundamentally wrong.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Bob Dechert Conservative Mississauga—Erindale, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Once again, I thank Madame Boivin for proposing this amendment.
In my view, the amendment misses the main purpose of Bill C-36, which is to, for the very first time in Canada, criminalize the purchase of sexual services from any individual, to say quite clearly and loudly to all those who are considering doing this, that we don't condone it, that doing so unreasonably puts sex workers themselves at risk. We've seen it over and over, and over again, with the brutal stories we've heard.
In my humble and considered opinion, Mr. Chair, this is not a business just like any other. It's unique; it's different. Far too many people are victimized by it. The demand is what drives it. The demand is what powers it. If the money weren't there to buy the services in the first place, there wouldn't be women trafficked into it. There wouldn't be young men trafficked into it.
As I mentioned earlier, and we heard it from witness after witness, this is a paradigm shift in the way we deal with this. Some may disagree, and I understand that. It may mess up their business plan. There are businesses that we don't allow to happen in Canada.
There are people who can use heroin for years and apparently not suffer significant negative medical impacts from it. But we know that most do, so although there are people who earn a living from selling heroin—and, yes, it still goes on even though it's been illegal for a very long time—we say that's not something that should happen in Canada.
We can't allow more of these kinds of stories to happen. I don't want to sit here 10 years from now and hear about the next generation of Bridget Perrier's story. It's incumbent upon us as elected officials to do something about this.
In my view, this amendment misses the mark. It would make the criminalization of the purchase of sexual services far too narrow to say we're only going to arrest and charge you for communicating for the purposes of purchasing sex while you're intimidating, holding a gun to the head, assaulting, or exploiting somebody.
It makes it ridiculously narrow and, therefore, to no beneficial effect, in my view. If they are holding a gun or a knife to the throat of the sex worker, of course, the police are going to move in and they're going to be charged with serious aggravated sexual assault. That's what's going to happen. This provision is not for that. There are many provisions in the Criminal Code that deal with that. That's not what's at issue today.
What we're saying to all those who would purchase sexual services of another person in Canada, “We don't agree.” It's not a business like any other. We strongly advise you not to do it. If you choose to, the police just might be there to put you in the back of their car, and then you'll deal with the consequences. Then your family will know what you're doing, as well as your co-workers and neighbours.
Only by doing that will we ever get at the nub of this issue, will we ever be able to look Bridget, Timea, and Katarina, and all those other women in the face and say, “We did something. We heard you and we're not going to let this happen to the next generation of young Canadians”.
As I said, it's inconsistent with the main objective of the bill, which is to reduce demand. I don't think it would effectively address the demand for prostitution. I also don't believe that any witness asked us to do this. They were on one side or the other. They said, “Criminalize the purchase, tell people, especially the men, that women's bodies are not for sale in Canada. It's not right and we don't condone it”.
Or “Laisser les bons temps rouler.” Every community in Canada will be a red-light district. We've got lots of willing purchasers just across the border in the wealthiest country in the world who are willing to come on in and take advantage of those services. For those who are able to do it in an equal, power-sharing way, having made a personal choice to provide their services, my goodness, there will be a lot of money out there for them. They're going to do very well. That's a great business model, you know.
If it were not for the fact that people get killed in this business every day, it might be something people might want to look at investing in. But, unfortunately, it's not just like any other business.
I don't suggest people invest in the drug trafficking trade, although that is also a very profitable trade that some people choose to do and people on the other side choose to inject heroin into their veins.
In the same regard, we're saying that's not something that we believe should happen in Canada. We don't think it's good for Canadian society and for all those reasons we'll not be supporting this amendment.