Madam Smith, I don't think anybody is saying that we disagree with the first statement. I think the first paragraph is standing on its own, and it's quite fine if we want to vote for it. On that I have no problem.
The difficulty, though, is what is meant when you suggest that the government should take all of that into consideration as it develops its laws. Because that's how I interpret the second paragraph. I suppose that part is okay, but then the third paragraph says that this should orient, somehow, Status of Women Canada in its funding or various programs.
Well, I'm sorry, but that's dealing with the mandate of Status of Women Canada, which is a whole other thing too. Again, as Ms. Neville says, what does that mean?
I don't like vague recommendations on things that have major impacts like that. If we want to make a bald statement about the fact that prostitution is exploitation of women, as the first paragraph states, I have no problem. If we want to say, in the second paragraph, that as the government develops its legislation and reviews the Criminal Code or what have you, it should take that into consideration, that's fine too, I suppose. It's the last one I have some difficulties with, because I'm not quite sure what it does.
Also, I thought we had a recommendation in the report to this effect. Did we not also address this in the report? If so, why are we doing it as a separate motion, which is out of context now, and has other meanings? That's my problem.