Justice committee  We've provided links where links were available, and full references in order for them to be found.

Justice committee  Yes, they aren't reproduced in full, or else it would be a lot bigger. But yes, all of the references are there.

Justice committee  You're absolutely right that it's very rare to see an explicit ad.

Justice committee  The person who takes out that ad, as long as it relates only to their own sexual services, is immunized from prosecution, which I would note is different from allowing prostitution. In no way does Bill C-36 attempt to allow the practice of prostitution. It merely immunizes from prosecution certain types of behaviour that are frequently engaged in by the persons who are considered to be exploited by the practice of prostitution.

Justice committee  Yes, there is evidence that indicates that. Sorry, what's the link to the advertising?

Justice committee  The advertising offence prohibits advertising the sale of sexual services, but if you look at proposed section 286.5, it proposes an immunity for the sellers of sexual services. So to the extent that a person puts an ad up advertising their own sexual services, they are immunized from prosecution by the bill explicitly.

Justice committee  Yes.

Justice committee  I would recommend that you all take a look at the technical paper that the minister just tabled. All of the research is referenced in that paper in the end notes, as well as in annex B, which is a bibliography. There is evidence that speaks to the experience of New Zealand, which decriminalized prostitution.

Justice committee  I can explain the amendment. It does create a separate legal test for exploitation, so the police would have to decide which definition they would go with. Previous witnesses have correctly pointed out that much of this language is derived from article 3 of the United Nations trafficking protocol and, as has already been pointed out, that language has not been judicially interpreted in Canada so there really is a problem with vagueness and potential overbreadth here with some of this language.

Justice committee  To be fair, Bill C-452does say “or”. The crown would have to prove only one. You're quite right that some of these expressions have no legal meaning in Canadian law whereas in section 279.04 as currently drafted, each word is carefully chosen and has been judicially interpreted.

Justice committee  I believe the current definition covers all of these different scenarios. Bill C-310 also provided an interpretive tool, which I think really helps. It uses language that has meaning in Canadian law to assist judges in interpreting when exploitation has taken place for the purposes of section 279.04.

Justice committee  And you're absolutely right. In fact, I was involved in the original drafting of the provision, and this wording was in the original drafting, I think, unfortunately, by error. It was removed by Bill C-310 when C-310 was enacted. It just was something that the drafters didn't catch.

Justice committee  I believe so. I believe this accomplishes the same goal as is in Bill C-452, but it better reflects the type of language that's already used in the Criminal Code and that has been found to be constitutional, so it's safer. But it affects the same thing.

Justice committee  One would have to conceive of a situation in which a teacher would be living with or “habitually in the company of” an exploited person, so I leave that to your....

Justice committee  No, actually, that's not how the presumption would function. All that the police would have to do is prove that the person lived with or was habitually in the company of the exploited person. Once they've proven that, they've made out one of the required elements of the offence.