Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Good day, Mr. Carrie. Thank you for coming.
I've been listening to you from the start, and I must say what you're saying sounds reasonable. That said, the part about the reasonable apprehension of fear does not sit well with me. Over the past few years, this committee has conducted several studies on the issue of sexual services and human trafficking, among other issues.
To my great surprise—I had no idea—I learned that women, men and individuals participating in prostitution sometimes hire a bodyguard, a driver or someone to make their appointments. Those individuals came before the committee to ask us to retain their right to organized work, with the best possible working conditions. One can agree with that or not, but that's what we were told. Ultimately, the message they gave us was that, as long as they agreed, as long as they were the key actors, if I can put it like that, it should be allowed.
However, you're eliminating the criterion that the victim have a reasonable apprehension of fear. I'm a bit troubled by that, and I wonder where this is going. Let's say a person participating in prostitution hires someone to make their appointments, and that individual tells the sex worker that they'll have to work Thursday evening from seven to 10. Will that individual be considered to be inciting the sex worker to participate in prostitution, to be engaging in exploitation for the purposes of human trafficking? Ultimately, it's the individual participating in prostitution who decided to have the other person make their appointments.
That may not be best example, but I'm a bit troubled by those concepts. As I indicated, I don't know much about it, but it seems reasonable to me that the individual being exploited must have a reasonable apprehension of fear. Do you agree with me on that point?