Very briefly, it's all fine and dandy, but at the same time, we heard from numerous witnesses that it was not that clear. I know that's what the parliamentary secretary spinned over and over during panels and here at committee, but it's not clear that it would be interpreted...in the sense that our amendment was really precise, to the point.
When you say, “in consideration for a service or good that relates to the protection of the health or safety of the person providing sexual services”, that's pretty much the only inference to Bedford we would see in the bill, which wouldn't be that wrong in a bill having 40-some clauses.
To leave it to interpretation, when words can mean what they mean.... And I want to rely, in the least way possible, on a preamble that will not exist in the Criminal Code. I want the text to be as clear as possible. I think that would have been way clearer.