Spotting the Difference: Comparing Canadian Sex Work Legislation from 1985 and 2014

Evania Pietrangelo-Porco

This essay is part of a series.

Last week, I provided an overview of sex work legislation in Canada- heavy-handedly hinting at its cyclical and unchanging nature. Today, I do much the same. I argue that Canada’s “new” sex work legislation is a regurgitation of the laws that have been in place since the 1980s.

[Bill C-36]…amends the Criminal Code to…(a) create an offence that prohibits purchasing sexual services or communicating in any place for that purpose; (b) create an offence that prohibits receiving a material benefit that derived from the commission of an offence referred to in paragraph (a); (c) create an offence that prohibits the advertisement of sexual services offered for sale…; (e) create an offence that prohibits communicating- for the purpose of selling sexual services- in a public place, or in any place open to public view, that is or is next to a school ground, playground or daycare centre;…^[1] – the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act

“Offence in relation to prostitution

213 (1) Every person who in a public place or in any place open to public view

(a) stops or attempts to stop any motor vehicle,

(b) impedes the free flow of pedestrian or vehicular traffic or ingress to or egress from premises adjacent to that place, or

(c) stops or attempts to stop any person or in any manner communicates or attempts to communicate with any person

for the purpose of engaging in prostitution or of obtaining the sexual services of a prostitute is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Marginal note: Definition of “public place”

(2) In this section, public place includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied, and any motor vehicle located in a public place or in any place open to public view.”^[2] – Bill C-49

If you can spot the difference, I commend you. If you cannot, that is because there is none. There are a number of similarities between Bills C-49 and C-36. I primarily focus on/noticed the following:

Similarity #1: C- 49 deals with, to a certain extent, “illicit” advertisement. The Bill states that people who print and distribute “obscene” material such as pornography are committing an offence. C-36 also, and quite obviously, “prohibits the advertising of sexual services.”

Similarity #2: Bill C-36 and Bill C-49 prohibit the public solicitation of sexual services. C-49 stipulated that a “public place,” which included motor vehicles, consisted of spaces that the public had “access/right.” Although Bill C-36 lists some locations like schools, playgrounds, and daycares, the law remains relatively the same. Terms like “public place” and “public view” are still ambiguous and open to interpretation.

Similarity #3: Bill C-36 and Bill C-49 aim to eliminate outdoor sex work. Residential organizations and municipal authorities in the 1980s openly called for an end to street solicitation in Canada. In the ‘80s, multiple news articles reported that outdoor sex work turned many of Canada’s major cities into “playgrounds” for open sexual encounters, used condoms, screeching tires, traffic jams, and brazen harassment of residents and their children. Though many sex workers also lived in these areas, they were clearly not considered residents of their respective cities. The goal was to eradicate neighbourhood “nuisances,” keep neighbourhoods looking nice and gentrified, and save the children.

The PCEPA’s Technical Paper says that Bill C-36 criminalizes the purchase of sexual services to protect communities, especially children, from “prostitution.”^[3] This criminalization intends to “send a message” to purchasers about the harms of their conduct on the public and “victims of sex work.”^[4] However, this “message” extends to sex workers themselves. They are one-half of the “exploitative” profession for which, according to Bill C-36, elimination is the only means of reconciliation.^[5] It appears the goals have not changed.   

Similarity #4: Bill C-49 generally had the support of government officials, while sex workers and sex worker advocacy groups drew attention to the Bill’s gaping legislative flaws. They argued that:

1. The ambiguous language of the law gave police unlimited discretion in applying it, meaning that something like a wink or a nod could result in charges and

2. C-49 was a band-aid solution to the deeper economic and social problems that prompted people to enter sex work

Then Justice Minister John Crosbie’s response (backed by police, “concerned” residents’ organizations, and mayors from large cities) to these concerns was, let’s say, dismissive. He openly mocked the idea that a wink could result in an arrest. Crosbie even said that since pimps already controlled sex workers, Bill C-49 could not put sex workers in more danger than sex work itself. Let me assure you, C-49 did put sex workers in more danger.

History has repeated itself with C-36. A 2014 Global News article reported that over 60 organizations and agencies across Canada, including the Canadian AIDS Society, the John Howard Society, and the Native Women’s Resource Centre, called for Bill C-36’s repeal.^[6] In another article by the Toronto Sun, sex workers and their allies urge the nation’s premiers not to enforce Bill C-36 because it endangers sex workers.^[7] The countless number of sex workers, organizations, and newspaper articles all argued the same underlying premise as they had with Bill C-49: that the government’s legislation endangers sex workers.

Governmental representatives’ reactions to these responses remained the same as they did for C-49. During the public hearings for Bill C-36, “…CPC [Canadian Progressive Conservative] committee members and pro [Bill C-36] witnesses …attempted to directly discredit sex worker organizations…” by haranguing Bill C-36 witnesses during questioning.^[8] This act of blatant disrespect a little too closely resembles John Crosbie’s contempt-filled reaction to anti-Bill C-49 advocates- proving that Bills C-49 and C-36 really are the same.

Return next week for my final article that discusses why Canada’s sex work legislation needs to change.

Evania Pietrangelo-Porco is a PhD candidate in the Department of History at York University. Her work primarily focuses on Vancouver and Toronto’s on-street sex trade from the 1970s to the 2010s.

---

^[1] Bill C-36, Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, SC 2014, 62-63 Elizabeth 2, c. 25 (Canada). https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/41-2/bill/C-36/royal-assent

^[2] Criminal Code, S. C. 1985, Elizabeth II, c. 51, s. 213 (Canada). https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-213-20030101.html#wb-cont

^[3] Technical Paper,Department of Justice, 2017.

^[4] Ibid.

^[5] Ibid.

^[6] “More than 60 groups call for repeal of new prostitution law,” Global News, Dec. 6, 2014, https://globalnews.ca/news/1712435/more-than-60-groups-call-for-repeal-of-new-prostitution-law/

^[7] Antonella Artuso, “Sex workers urge premiers not to enforce new prostitution law,”Toronto Sun, Dec. 17, 2014, https://torontosun.com/2014/12/17/sex-workers-says-bill-c-36-leaves-them-vulnerable

^[8] Genevieve Fuji Johnson, Mary Burns, and Kerry Porth, “Shouting Into The Wind” Experiences of Testifying Against Bill C-36 The Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act,” Academia.edu (2017): 9-10 and 24. doi: https://www.academia.edu/37590782/Shouting_Into_The_Wind_Experiences_of_Testifying_Against_Bill_C_36_The_Protection_of_Communities_and_Exploited_Persons_Act