Those who have followed the public positions I've taken on this will know that I was hopeful we could involve those most directly impacted by the law, and that is the sex workers themselves, in the design and in setting the scope of this study.
What you've just told me now confirms to me the importance of the testimony we're going to hear from those witnesses, because what we have is really just a review of case law and police charging statistics, and we don't really have, from Justice, the comprehensive review that we'd really need on this bill.
Again, I'm not casting that at you. I'm just saying that we don't have that available here. I know the committee will keep in mind, as we continue to invite witnesses to the committee, that we really need to have a good balance that includes those who are most directly affected by the legislation.
Ms. Levman, when you reviewed the objectives of Bill C-36, the original bill, you reminded me of what my original objection was. The bill really comes from a prohibitionist stance, so its objectives are to stamp out, reduce and remove sex work. Those are laid out in the objectives as you described them.
Would you agree with me that that is the premise behind Bill C-36?