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.