I don't. I think you may have hit the nail on the head when it comes to sectioning the report off, as far as content or points of view are concerned. I think there are just two, basically. I'd be willing to go at it in that fashion--at least it's all upfront--and then we'll go after the recommendations afterwards.
But to go back to what Hedy said, don't get me wrong, in my opposition and my statement when it comes to the formulation of this report, I don't look at it as some sort of conspiracy. I don't think it's a conspiracy. I think it's two opposing points of view that are shaping the law. So we go either with that one or with another one. That's basically where it is. I don't think because you may look at things from a certain point of view, or all of you together, that it's a conspiracy. I just think you adhere to that philosophical point of view. Even amongst the feminist movement, it's definitely a split. The feminists look at the position you might take, one half of them, and the other half says, “No, it's exploitation of women and it is abuse”, and they look at it from that point of view. I think those things should be pointed out. I'm not saying there's a split there, but those points of view should be pointed out, because one supports and one does not. Maybe there isn't enough evidence just yet to say this is the way we should go, and that may be a recommendation in the report too.
I think what's confusing this issue is some direction where Mr. Ménard wants to take this whole thing. I don't understand where he's coming from on this thing, because we started out with solicitation and now the whole gamut is up for grabs here, including the issue of bawdy houses and the whole bit. I know what his--