I just want to make sure my understanding of the burden of proof is correct as far as what the police, or rather the Crown, have to prove. It is, after all, the crown attorney who has to establish the proof. This doesn't make things harder for them than the original bill did. Unless I'm mistaken, we're repeating the language in sections 279.01 and 279.011 of the Criminal Code. We're doing somewhat the same thing when it comes to section 212 and the language regarding the presumption and evidence that the person lives with or is habitually in the company of a prostitute. So we're always repeating the language of the offence itself. That seems to make things clearer than they were originally in Bill C-452. That's what you're telling us, basically.
Using that language has absolutely no bearing on the strength of the burden of proof for the Crown. That's what the bill is trying to do, in other words, provide more tools to eradicate a scourge. That should be our focus. Indeed, if we want to send a crystal clear message that we have zero tolerance for human trafficking and we want to give police more tools, the language in question is perfectly fine.
Is my understanding correct? If so, then, I'm okay with it.