Why we oppose Bill C-36
Adopted in 2014, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act was meant to protect. A decade later, the verdict is in: it exposes. ASMEQ calls for its repeal.
What the law says — and where it came from
Bill C-36 — officially the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act (PCEPA) — came into force in December 2014. Modelled on the Swedish "Nordic model", it criminalizes the purchase of sexual services, their advertising, and receiving a material benefit from their sale. The result is a legal paradox: selling is legal, buying is a crime.
The law was born of a judicial defeat for the government. In 2013, in Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously struck down the principal prostitution provisions of the Criminal Code, finding they violated the Charter right to security of the person: they prevented workers from taking elementary protective measures — working indoors, hiring security, screening a client before getting into his car.
Rather than draw the consequences of that ruling, Parliament shifted criminalization onto the client — recreating, in practice, the same dangers in a different form.
-
2007
The Bedford challenge is filed
Terri-Jean Bedford, Amy Lebovitch and Valerie Scott challenge the constitutionality of the Criminal Code’s prostitution provisions.
-
December 20, 2013
The Supreme Court rules — unanimously
In Canada (AG) v. Bedford, 2013 SCC 72, all nine justices strike down the challenged provisions: they "impose dangerous conditions on prostitution" and violate section 7 of the Charter. Parliament is given one year to act.
-
December 2014
C-36 is adopted
The government responds with the PCEPA: criminalization of purchase, advertising and material benefit. Many jurists warn from day one that the law recreates the very dangers the Court had condemned.
-
Since 2021
The law is challenged again
Coalitions of sex workers and human-rights organizations, including the Canadian Alliance for Sex Work Law Reform, are challenging the constitutionality of C-36 before the courts. The judicial debate continues.
Five reasons to repeal it
-
It recreates the danger condemned in Bedford
A client who risks arrest demands rushed encounters, in isolated places, without screening. That is exactly the dynamic the Supreme Court found contrary to security of the person.
-
It drives the activity underground
Less visibility means fewer reports, fewer witnesses, fewer traces. Clandestinity is a smokescreen handed to trafficking networks free of charge.
-
It strips recourse from the people it claims to protect
When every transaction involves a crime, calling the police becomes a risk — to your income, your workplace, your colleagues. Assaults go unpunished because they go unreported.
-
The Nordic model has not delivered
Neither in Sweden nor in Canada has a lasting drop in demand been demonstrated. What is documented is the growing precariousness of those who do the work: riskier negotiations, unstable income, deeper isolation.
-
It scatters police resources
Every hour spent surveilling consenting adults is an hour not spent on traffickers, exploited minors and criminal networks. C-36 makes the police an arbiter of morality instead of a shield for victims.
What decriminalization is not
The word frightens people because it is made to say things it does not say. Let us be precise.
Decriminalization is not…
- Impunity for traffickers — Criminal Code sections 279.01–279.04 remain and must be enforced more vigorously
- Abandoning victims — quite the opposite: witnesses who no longer fear the police come forward
- A market without rules — we propose a demanding regulatory framework, precisely
- Promotion of the industry — it is harm-reduction policy, not advertising
Decriminalization is…
- Removing criminal law from the relationship between consenting adults
- Regulating through public health, labour law and licensing — like any other higher-risk sector
- Concentrating criminal enforcement on trafficking, coercion and minors
- Giving workers the status, recourse and protection of any citizen
ASMEQ fully supports the Criminal Code’s human-trafficking provisions (ss. 279.01–279.04) and asks that they be enforced with more resources, not fewer. Decriminalizing consensual work and cracking down on exploitation are not opposites: the former makes the latter more effective.
“The Supreme Court told Parliament these laws were putting lives in danger. Parliament responded by changing the danger’s name.”— ASMEQ, brief on the PCEPA
Frequently asked questions
What is Bill C-36?
Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act (PCEPA), came into force in December 2014 in response to the Supreme Court of Canada’s Bedford ruling. Modelled on the Swedish 'Nordic model', it criminalizes the purchase of sexual services, advertising such services, and receiving a material benefit — making Canada a country where selling is legal but buying is a crime.
Why does ASMEQ oppose C-36?
Because it recreates precisely the dangers the Supreme Court condemned in Bedford: by criminalizing the client, it forces rushed negotiations in isolated places, drives the activity underground, cuts workers off from police protection, and makes real trafficking harder to detect. ASMEQ calls for its repeal and replacement with a protective regulatory framework.
What does ASMEQ propose instead of C-36?
Decriminalization of consensual adult work, paired with strict regulation: age verification (18+), free and revocable consent, health and safety standards, operating licences and recognized worker status — while maintaining and strengthening the Criminal Code’s anti-trafficking provisions (sections 279.01 to 279.04).
The alternative exists
We do not merely criticize: we propose a complete regulatory framework, drawing on the best international practice.