I definitely hear Ms. Smith and Mr. Wilks. We are not, I repeat, on the trafficking or recruiting section.
It says in proposed subsection 213(1.1) of clause 15 that:
(1.1) 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 open to public view, that is or is next to a place where persons under the age of 18 can reasonably be expected to be present.
This is the clause that touches on the prostitute, the sex workers, solely. It's not the recruiting. It's who we've heard about from every side of the equation as being victims.
If I hear Mr. Wilks correctly, they're victims up to a certain point. If they cross the line and do it in a public place, that they define as a school, a church, and so on
a day care centre, schoolyard or playground nearby,
in their amendment G-4, then they're not victims any more.
That's basically what we have to understand. All the rest is covered in other sections, either through Bill C-36, against the pimps, the johns, or through the trafficking sections that are in the Criminal Code, either with some amendments in Bill C-36 or the actual case.
So as for all of the explanations that I heard from Ms. Smith, of course course nobody wants to see a kid being prostituted in a school, but this is not what it is about. It's about whether or not we want to victimize the person in one of these aspects. That's the question we have to ask ourselves as committee members. What I'm hearing from the government is clear. Finally it is clear: prostitutes are not victims any more when they do it at that point in time.
While Ms. Smith says that policemen do not usually arrest prostitutes, that might be true in certain parts of Canada.... Not necessarily, because when there is the actual section.... We heard some of your witnesses come to the committee on the last day and say that they wanted section 213 to stay for the sole reason that it would help
investigation. They could catch the person. If they can't arrest them, it could be hard to know who is behind them, who was the john, who was the pimp, and so on.
Some police officers would like to have that provision at their disposal, since it could be useful for them. Except that almost all the witnesses told us no. They told us that these are victims.
At least the message is clear. I can't fault you since your message is clear. These people are victims, to a certain point, as long as it doesn't interfere with protecting communities and it isn't conducted in certain well-defined areas.
What a ridiculous concept. I think we've heard everything on this subject.