Mr. Speaker, before question period, I outlined the government's attempt to push forward Bill C-36 on the basis of optics rather than the reality of the world.
I outlined as well the fact that the government has failed to listen to evidence provided at committee on the safety and security of those involved in the sex trade, and on the constitutionality of the bill. I feel the new law will end up where the old law did, and that is, it will likely be tossed out.
Let me quote what a couple of other people said.
John Ivison wrote in the National Post that the member for Central Nova's role:
—as Attorney General of Canada requires him to be the guardian of the rule of law. He is mandated to protect the personal liberties of Canadians and advise Cabinet to ensure its actions are legal and constitutional.
By introducing a new law on prostitution that is all but certain to be struck down by the courts, he has failed on all counts....
This bill is likely to make life even more unsafe for many prostitutes. If they can’t advertise their services to persuade the johns to come to them, many more are likely to take to the streets in search of business.
What he is speaking to is the safety and security of citizens. We cannot judge morally, but the fact of the matter is that it is responsibility of government to protect the safety and security of individuals. This bill does not do that. It makes it worse.
The other statement is by Michael Den Tandt for Postmedia News. He said:
Because C-36, in its effect, will be no different than the laws it is intended to replace, it is bound to wind up back at the Supreme Court – where it will quite likely be tossed, just as the old laws were tossed. So, why bring it forward?
He went on to say:
Calculated for political gain it may be; that doesn’t make it right. Until it is overturned, C-36 can only put prostitutes at greater risk. It is irrational, misguided and recidivist social policy, in a country that has gotten used to better.
There are several other quotes that came up at committee. I would refer members and Canadians to look at some of the statements made at committee with respect to the constitutionality of this legislation. There was an analysis provided at the committee on constitutional concerns. Individuals should look at that.
This law is not doing what it should do. It is very problematic. I ask the government to reconsider it. Let us just do it right.