We are still in the preamble, but we are dealing now with independent amendments IND-3 and IND-4. I'm going to treat them basically the same.
I will read the first one and then I'll read what the decision is. Then I'll also give Madame Mourani a moment to comment, since we are in the preamble.
Amendment IND-3 is to move that Bill C-36 in the preamble be amended by replacing line 11 on page 1 with the following: discouraging prostitution, which is unlawful and has a dispro-
I'm not sure what the next line is.
Amendment IND-4 adds after line 12 on page 1 the following: Whereas it is important to denounce and prohibit prostitution;
My ruling is simple. It's the very same as the previous ruling. It is that the amendment seeks to make substantive modification by adding new elements to the preamble that are not reflected in the body of the bill. House of Commons Procedure, Second Edition, states on page 770 what a substantive amendment is. In my opinion, both of these amendments are substantive and therefore inadmissible.
They are substantive—and I want to explain why I believe so—in that nowhere in the bill that I can read in the clauses are we actually saying that prostitution is unlawful and that the selling of sex.... There is matter dealing with the purchase but not the selling.
There are lots of opportunities, based on the clauses that are actually in the bill about “in private” and so on.... There are some prohibitions about “in public” that have passed and are in there concerning school properties and parks and day cares. But this is a substantive change to what the actual bill is: it is not saying that prostitution is unlawful and does not prohibit prostitution.
For that reason, those two amendments to the preamble are in my opinion inadmissible.
That is my ruling, but I will give Madame Mourani a couple of minutes to talk about why she thought they were important in the preamble.