X University
Final Paper: Sex Work and Bill C-36 Reform
Muna Abdullahi
500762840
Instructor Pascal Murphy
CR8104 Practitioner's Seminar - Homelessness: Social Justice Perspectives
4 July, 2021
Final Paper: Sex Work and Bill C-36 Reform
The commercial exchange of sex has become a highly contested global issue as it relates
to human rights and public safety, especially in Canada. With the laws pertaining to sex work
being problematic and vague, Canada v. Bedford (2013) directly challenged this issue, arguing
that these laws were unconstitutional and violated the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, which guaranteed the right to life, liberty and security for all (Bedford SCC, 2013).
Subsequently, Canadian legislators passed Bill C-36, also known as the Protection of
Communities and Exploited Persons Act (PCEPA), which criminalized the purchasing of sexual
services while the selling of the services remained legal (Snow, Steely & Bensel, 2020). Despite
the claims that this Bill works to extend the rights of sex workers and protects them from
unneccesary harm, many sex workers, scholars and researchers argue that Bill C-36 further
criminalizes sex work and leaves sex workers even more vulnerable. Therefore, I argue that Bill
C-36 does not meet its overall objective of protecting sex workers; rather it erases vulnerable sex
workers from the public eye, isolates them from gaining any true protection and further
criminalizes them with its unrealistic standards and requirements. I will focus my paper
specifically in the context of Vancouver, British Columbia and their mishandling of sex workers,
particularly as it relates to vulnerable women and the ongoing human-rights crisis of the Missing
and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. I will further argue that Bill C-36 should be
abolished and Vancouver should instead move away from a criminalized and punitive approach
to sex work and instead towards a social and health approach through the implementation of safe
and private bawdy houses.
Sex workers experience and suffer significantly higher rates of mortality compared to the
rest of the general population, with laws and policies that criminalize sex work playing a large
1
role (Prangnell, Shannon, Nosova, DeBeck, Milloy, Kerr & Hayashi, 2018). So to begin, it is
important to outline how vague and contradictory laws in the Canadian government contributes
to the harms and danger than sex workers are forced to endure. Prior to the Supreme Court
decision of Canada v. Bedford (2013), from 2009 to 2014, incidents related to sex work
accounted for less than 0.01% of all crimes reported to Canadian police (Rotenberg, 2013).
While quite insignificant, approximately 82% of these incidents were for “communicating or
attempting to communicate with a person for the purpose of engaging in or obtaining sexual
services” (Rotenberg, 2016, p. 3). Demographic-wise, while it varies from region to region,
Indigenous women are over-represented among street-level sex workers (Shannon, Kerr,
Allinott, Chettiar, Shoveller & Tyndall, 2008). Furthermore, violence against sex workers, by
clients and/or predators, accounted for a significant amount of violations (Rotenberg, 2016).
Research shows approximately 294 homicides of sex workers in Canada between the years 1991
to 2014, which a third of these cases remaining unsolved (Rosenberg, 2016). The prominent
number of sex workers facing violence from unsafe working conditions (particularly those
working street-level) resulted in the direct challenge of the Criminal Code of Canada, thus
calling for Canada v. Bedford (2013) and the formation of Bill C-36, which impacted sex
workers and how they conducted their profession in a profound way in Canada.
It is vital to note that the main reason the three applicants, Terri-Jean Bedford, Amy
Lebovitch and Valerie Scott, who were all sex workers, challenged the Supreme Court for its
laws pertaining to sex work was because of violent victimization and unsafe work environment
that were legitimized under the Criminal Code (Galbally, 2016). A number of provisions under
the Criminal Code were confusing and quite contradictory to the fact that at the time, the
exchange of money for sexual services was legal. Sex workers were quite limited as they were
2
prohibited from being within a bawdy house (a building in which transactional sexual services
would occur) as well as communicating for the purposes of prostitution; simply, it was illegal for
sex workers to do their job of selling sex outdoors, inside a location specifically for sex work and
to work with others (Goodall, 2019). Therefore, the three applicants argued that the laws
pertaining to sex work/prostitution (the case uses both terms interchangeably) violated their
rights by stopping sex workers from taking proper safety measures and communicating with
clients. This compromised the health, safety and security of sex workers, particularly those who
work street-level as they could not screen potential clients (Goodall, 2019). Furthermore, with
them not being allowed to operate indoors through a bawdy house or any other space dedicated
to sex work, they were forced into isolation and onto the streets, further leaving them vulnerable
to violence inflicted by clients and/or predators (Snow, Steely & Bensel, 2020).
With the Supreme Court deciding that all three provisions violated the right to security of
the person and proceeded to strike them down (Snow, Steely & Bensel, 2020). However, rather
than taking strides to ultimately decriminalize sex work in Canada, the Supreme Court decided to
take a punitive approach and introduce laws pertaining to sex work that would comply under the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Therefore, the Harper government adopted a ‘Nordic’ model,
which operates under the assumption that sex work is exploitative and ultimately harms women
by normalizing a culture of violence towards them (Galbally, 2016). Here, Bill C-36 (PCEPA) is
introduced, with the logic being that if it is illegal to purchase sexual services, then less harm
will be caused to the sex worker due to the lack of clientele/exposure (Galbally, 2016). While
this model seems confusing and contradictory to the government’s claims of wanting to protect
sex workers, it is important to know that this was done intentionally by putting emphasis on the
agenda of women’s rights and protection to justify leaving them stranded on the streets,
3
vulnerable to any danger. Senator Donald Plett, the current leader of the Opposition in the
Canadian Senate, in fact made it a point to clarify the intention that the Harper government had
in implementing this bill during its proceedings (Canada, Plett, 2014):
The overall intent of this legislation is to abolish prostitution, not to make it a safe
occupation. Both of you have talked a number of times about how this is making it more
dangerous for prostitutes. Of course, we don't want to make life safe for prostitutes; we
want to do away with prostitution. That's the intent of the bill.
With his bold and transparent words, Plett and his peers make it obvious that they are resorting
back to the centuries-old rhetoric that sex workers are disposable and are to be treated as a public
nuisance, rather than look at this from a economic, health and social standpoint (Allinott et al.,
2004). Historically, sex work’s governance has been acknowledged as a profession that renders
those who participate in it invisible, which has been achieved by policymakers characterizing
public, viewable sex work as a nuisance that must be punished (Campbell, 2015). Bill C-36
embodies an outdated approach to the governance of sex work, where it prioritizes community
interests through law in order to remove sex workers from the public eye and place them in areas
where their exposure to risks and danger is heightened immensely.
Historically, sex work was treated as a form of vagrancy in Canada (Campbell, 2015).
With the criminalization of ‘night walkers’ and ‘prostitutes’, the Canadian government was
geared towards punishing someone for their status rather than them committing a particular act
(Allinott et al., 2004). Clearly, not much has changed as Bill C-36 stands with viewing sex
workers as simultaneously victimized and threatening. This confusing dichotomy finds itself as a
product of neoliberalism with its set up of two ideological binaries: members of the community
and thus deserving of protection for following social norms, or outlaws who are not deserving of
4
such protection (Eigenberger, 2011; Campbell, 2015). Even the bill’s name, Protection of
Communities and Exploited Persons Act, invokes feelings of worthiness and respectability by
stating that the protection of “communities” and “exploited persons” must be placed in
legislative wording without recognizing that sex workers are members within said communities
(Campbell, 2015). While Bill C-36 has the objective of protecting so-called “exploited persons”
from the woes of sex work, it is contradicting because it serves to prioritize eliminating any
nuisance faced by the community from the wicked sex worker.
Moving forward, I will be arguing why I believe that Bill C-36 should be abolished and
that the Canadian government should stride towards decriminalizing sex work. I recognize that
Bill C-36 is a large piece of legislation that is quite nuanced and complicated, therefore I highly
encourage readers to explore works that outline how sex work is characterized in the Canadian
Criminal Code and permeates every facet of life for sex workers. However, for the purposes of
this paper, I will focus on the potential solution of implementing safe, secure and resourceful
bawdy houses for sex workers and the many benefits they would receive if sex work was studied
as a health and social topic rather than a public nuisance issue. I will specifically focus on
Vancouver’s role in the vulnerability of sex workers through hypersurveillance and policing,
particularly amongst Indigenous women and the ongoing crisis of Missing and Murdered
Indigenous Women and Girls.
In the case of Vancouver, British Columbia, the Downtown Eastside (‘DTES’) has
garnered global attention due to the mishandling of serial rapist and killer Robert Pickton by the
Vancouver Police Department (VPD) and the numerous other instances of vulnerable Indigenous
women being neglected for their status and disappearing without a trace. In the case of Pickton,
the victims shared common traits: many were facing extreme poverty and homelessness, many of
5
whom were sex workers who operated in the DTES and many lacked social/familial ties that
were recognized by White, mainstream communities (Galbally, 2016). I really want to reiterate
that this was not by coincidence: Pickton made it a point to target individuals who fit this
description because he was aware of the fact that they were neglected in regards to their safety
and were over-represented in the criminal justice system/prisons, resulting in the normalization
of their disposableness and in fact expected it due to their social deviance as sex workers. While
the Pickton case was the final push before the Bedford case, much work still needs to be done in
recognizing how we as a society consciously and unconsciously contribute to this society of
stigma towards sex workers.
As aforementioned, Indigenous women are over-represented within populations of
street-level sex workers Canada-wide, therefore their racialization makes them even more
vulnerable for any predators, leaving the latter less worried for any immediate consequences by
the government, police and overall society. Most, if not all, of the missing and murdered women
engaged in sex work as a means for survival, such as food and shelter, emphasizing how much of
Vancouver’s structural imbalance and high rates of poverty amongst Indigenous women lead to
them resorting to unsafe sex work (Galbally, 2016). Clearly, Bill C-36 contributed to this as it
has effectively barred sex workers from operating indoors within bawdy houses and brothels,
however the specific vulnerability that Indigenous sex workers face must be addressed. As a
result of their dehumanized status within Canada, Indigenous girls, women, two-spirit and
transwomen experience disproportionate rates of violence over the course of their lifetimes
(Olson-Pitawanakwat & Baskin, 2021). The RCMP has reported over one thousand cases of
missing and/or murdered Indigenous women and girls over the course of thirty years, however
the Ontario Native Women’s Association claim this number is well over four thousand (ONWA,
6
2017). Furthermore, Indigenous women account for 50% of all of Canada’s sex trafficking
victims, with a whole sleuth of reasons for their vulnerability (Newton, 2016). With childhood
abuse, the residential school system, inadequate housing, poverty, limited access to healthcare
and educational opportunities, a general lack of culturally safe support services and overall
generational trauma, Indigenous girls and women are left completely vulnerable and find that
they must resort to sex work as a means of income and cloak of invisibility from the oppressive
police (Olson-Pitawanakwat & Baskin, 2021). With this list of potential factors, it highlights how
flawed Bill C-36 is as it purposefully frames sex work as a lifestyle choice rather than
acknowledges it as the result of structural inequalities and colonialism.
When reporting on sex workers and drug users’ access to health services, researchers
have found that stigma is a key barrier that is experienced by this vulnerable population
(Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 2014). Due to this stigma, sex workers must
undergo healthcare professionals using dismissive language, judgemental attitudes and poor
service, demonstrating that the profession of healthcare is not unbiased and that many bring in
their preconceived biases when administering help (Tedx Talks, 2014). As a result of this stigma,
potential poor service and a fear of being judged, sex workers find themselves either having to
lie about their profession or not receive any professional help at all (Inter-American Commission
on Human Rights, 2014). This leads to various social and health complications for street-level
sex workers, such as them not receiving preventative care for sexually transmitted diseases and
not being properly referred to the necessary medical and/or social services to come to terms with
other issues they may be dealing with (Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, 2014).
Even further for street-level sex workers, the Safe Streets Act, which was implemented in British
Columbia in 2004, serves as a hindrance as it leaves them vulnerable to police harassment and
7
surveillance, thus forcing them to operate in an isolated manner where they are left vulnerable
(Gaetz, 2012; Tedx Talk, 2014).
In a study conducted by Benoit and Millar (2001), they interviewed 200 British Columbia
sex workers and examined any unsafe working conditions in a variety of venues and areas. They
found that people who worked indoors for a controlled and professional agency reported
significantly lower rates of control over the number of clients seen in a shift compared to those
who worked street-level and independently (Benoit & Millar, 2001). However, it was
emphasized that this left them feeling better off as this was due to high levels of screening for
potential clients and thus less exposure to dangerous working conditions. As noted in a study by
the Street Health, Regent Park Community Health Centre and the Needs Assessment Team
(2014), clients are the most likely to inflict any harm or violence towards sex workers and that
sex workers were less likely to report any incidents to the police due to the aforementioned of
stigma within institutions alike and the alienation that is felt. Given that researchers consistently
report high rates of violence within street-level sex work, allowing sex workers who are already
so vulnerable work within established and safe bawdy houses suggests safer work environments
for sex workers. The point I am trying to establish is that sex work is not always violent; rather a
society that enforces punitive justice and criminalization produces a work environment like sex
work to have conditions that allow and even encourage violence against sex workers.
To further this point of criminalization not prioritizing the safety and protection of sex
workers and instead creating a culture of stigma towards them, a study by Prangnell et al. (2018)
indicates how client-targeted policing initiated by the VPD does little-to-nothing for protecting
sex workers from workplace violence. In 2013, the VPD changed their guidelines with the goal
of increasing safety for sex workers by instilling law enforcement on clients rather than sex
8
workers, however again, the sex workers interviewed did not feel as if their safety was
prioritized and instead felt stigmatization from the police as well complications with screening
clients (Pragnell et al., 2018). Police supervision does nothing for protecting sex workers as their
negative biases will always bleed into their profession and cause burden for sex workers, which
is why there has been much push for independent security to protect sex workers and screen
clients (O'Doherty, 2011).
Back to the implementation of safe bawdy houses for sex workers to operate, a study by
Tamera O’Doherty (2011) asked respondents to compare their experiences working at massage
parlors, escort agencies and independently (not necessarily street-level). Massage parlours were
perceived as the safest option out of the three, suggesting that these perceptions accurately reflect
the respondents’ experiences. Defining victimization amongst the respondents varied a bit, with
some describing instances of threats with a weapon from their clients, theft and client refusal to
wear a condom, however they all shared that the vast majority of harm due to their line of work
was from clients, emphasizing how vital effective screening is to ensure safety (O'Doherty,
2011). As aforementioned, a major issue for sex workers is not being able to report any violent or
harmful incidents due to the stigma they may receive and it potentially hindering them from
returning to work. In this same study, women who had never experienced violence said that they
would immediately report to the police without hesitation, while those who have experienced
violence confirmed that they most likely would never again report to the police due to their
dissatisfaction from the reports (O'Doherty, 2011). O’Doherty found that all of the respondents
had strategies in case of violence from their clients: screening clients, using intuition and
planning ahead (2011). Screening is perhaps the most proactive strategy in ensuring safety,
however the techniques associated with would best be accomplished through established and
9
professional help, like an office secretary and bodyguard within a legitimate bawdy house, rather
than on the street where violence without accountability can occur easily and frequently, as seen
with the thousands of missing and murdered Indigenous women in Vancouver’s DTES.
Implementing bawdy houses with established mandates of safety that prioritize sex
workers would work to eliminate this ‘hush hush’ culture that they must endure. Even the little
things I did not even think of would be taken care of, such as employing drivers to safely escort
you from location to location, clear and transparent communication done by secretaries to ensure
there are no mix-ups and the sex worker is aware of what they are consenting to and sex workers
feeling comfortable to speak out when they wish knowing that bodyguards are there to rescue
them. The criminalization of sex work is a major factor that lead to individuals like Robert
Pickton to be able to prey on Indigenous sex workers in Vancouver’s DTES for so many years
without the police or RCMP caring. Sex work has become a means of survival for Indigenous
girls and women because of the lack of social supports within their communities, therefore
implementing an approach that values their lives and safety and eliminates the criminalization
factor of sex work will result in sex work operating in a much safer way. With street-level sex
work being greatly reduced and at best completely eliminated, we could take strides towards
redirecting our society towards a culture of understanding rather than blatant slut-shaming and
respectablity politics, where the concerns of White and wealthy Canadians are valued rather than
everyone within this community.
In conclusion, I came to the understanding that as it stands today, our laws pertaining to
sex work does not prioritize the health and safety of sex workers at all; rather it contributes to the
negative stigma that society holds over them and their profession. The Canadian government
fails in protecting the lives of its vulnerable population as they are viewed as disposable and
10
deserving of any danger that comes their way, refusing to look at things more than just a public
nuisance issue. The act of selling sex does not in it of itself result in sex workers being victim to
violence, therefore our policies should not exist under the assumption that sex work is inherently
violent. Generalization such as this in this particular line of work misrepresent the realities of sex
work and falls under the trap of neoliberalism and any violence experienced by sex workers is
warranted. Therefore, this paper explains how through legislation and public opinion, casting sex
work as a public nuisance renders attempts at reform such as the PCEPA and client-focused
policing worthless as it relies on the presumed idea that sex work should be an invisible practice.
To completely decriminalize sex work and abolish Bill C-36 calls for a lot and would require
Canada as a society to look inwards at how we contribute to the further victimization and
isolation that sex workers undergo, however I wish to mainly focus on allowing for sex work to
be a private practice with safety measures implemented to ensure that they are protected and
have access to healthcare and a social standing.
11
Bibliography
Allinott, S., & Pivot Legal Society. (2004). Voices for dignity: A call to end the harms caused by
Canada's sex trade laws. Vancouver: Pivot Legal Society.
Benoit, C., & Millar, A. (2001). Dispelling myths and understanding realities: Working
conditions, health status and exiting experiences of sex workers. Retrieved from
http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/Working%20Conditions,%20Health%20Status%20and
%20Exiting%20Experience%20of%20Sex%20Workers.pdf
Campbell, A. (2015). Sex Work’s Governance: Stuff and Nuisance. Fem Leg Stud, 23, 27–45.
Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford. (n.d.). Retrieved July 2, 2021, from
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/13389/index.do
Canada, Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, 2
15 (9 September 2014) 84 (Donald Plett).
Eigenberger, M. [Martin Eigenberger]. (2011, October 11). Neoliberalism as a Water Balloon
[Video]. Youtube. Retrieved from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIUWZnnHz2g&ab_channel=MartinEigenberger
Gaetz, S (2012): The Real Cost of Homelessness: Can We Save Money by Doing the Right
Thing? Toronto: Canadian Homelessness Research Network Press.
Galbally, P. J. (2016). PLAYING THE VICTIM: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF CANADA'S
BILL C-36 FROM AN INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS PERSPECTIVE.
Melbourne Journal of International Law, 17(1), 135-169.
Goodall, Z. (2019). United by the problem, divided by the solution: How the issue of indigenous
women in prostitution was represented at the deliberations on Canada's bill C-36.
Canadian Journal of Women and the Law, 31(2), 232-265.
12
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (2014). Missing and Murdered Indigenous
Women in British Columbia, Canada. Toronto: OAE.
Newton, P. (2016, February 23). Canada’s stolen daughters: Sex traffickers target indigenous
Canadians. CNN.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/23/world/canada-indigenous-sex-trafficking/index.html
O'Doherty, T. (2011). Victimization in off-street sex industry work. Violence Against Women,
17(7), 944-963.
Olson-Pitawanakwat, B., & Baskin, C. (2021). In between the missing and murdered: The need
for indigenous-led responses to trafficking. Affilia, 36(1), 10-26.
Ontario Native Women’s Association . (2017). Fact sheet: Indigenous missing and murdered
Indigenous women and girls [PDF]. Fort William First Nation: Ontario Native Women’s
Association.
http://www.onwa.ca/upload/documents/fact-sheets/fact-sheet-mmiwg-v4--2017-11-24--in
t.pdf
Prangnell, A., Shannon, K., Nosova, E., DeBeck, K., M-J Milloy, Kerr, T., & Hayashi, K. (2018).
Workplace violence among female sex workers who use drugs in Vancouver, Canada:
does client-targeted policing increase safety? Journal of Public Health Policy, 39(1),
86-99.
Rotenberg, C. (2016). Prostitution offences in Canada: Statistical trends (Report No. 85-002-x).
Ottawa: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics.
Shannon, K., Kerr, T., Allinott, S., Chettiar, J., Shoveller, J., & Tyndall, M. W. (2008). Social and
structural violence and power relations in mitigating HIV risk of drug-using women in
survival sex work. Social Science & Medicine, 66(4), 911–921.
13
Snow, N. M., Steely, M. K., & Bensel, T. T. (2020). The right to life, liberty and security for
prostitution: Canada v. bedford. Women & Criminal Justice, , 1-8.
Street Health, Regent Park Community Health Centre, and the Needs Assessment Team. (2014).
Street-based sex workers needs assessment.
Tedx Talks. (2014, November 24). The red umbrella - sex wrok, stigma & the law [Video].
YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLsRNoUx8w3rOp2HY8DkELDYoIJdFRVMFp&
v=RUfcouJch7U&feature=youtube
14