History of prostitution in Canada

[4] Action by the authorities occurred only in the context of other criminal or socially undesirable activity taking place in or in the vicinity of these brothels such as creating a public nuisance.

As in many other countries, what control there was of prostitution existed under vagrancy laws designed to keep public places free of "undesirables".

Women under 21 were protected from 'defilement' from that date, while in 1869, vagrancy provisions were consolidated and extended to include males 'living on the avails' of prostitution.

Only from about 1890 was there concern about the actual existence of prostitution, with religious groups, early feminists and women's groups such as Woman's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) and the National Council of Women of Canada[6][7] campaigning for social purity and against prostitution, which was condemned as a 'social evil', and 'white slave trade', a popular concern of the time.

From 1892 to 1972, this created an offence under 175(1)(c) for a vagrant who: being a common prostitute or nightwalker is found in a public place and does not, when required, give a good account of herself.

For example, a smallpox epidemic in the red light districts of Calgary ignited a crackdown as demanded by middle-class women reformers.

[4] The original 1892 Criminal Code described 12 ways in which a "loose, idle or disorderly person or vagrant" might be arrested and upon conviction subjected to a maximum fine of $50 or imprisonment not exceeding six months with or without hard labour.

(c) -being a common prostitute or night walker is found in a public place and does not, when required, give a good account of herselfwas replaced by language prohibiting soliciting (communicating) for the purposes of prostitution (section 195.1), which read: every person who solicits any person in a public place for the purpose of prostitution is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.The new law was now gender neutral and defined an offence based on an act (although not the nature of the act) and was thought to have addressed the social nuisance concerns of residents.

Ottawa and Edmonton created task forces in 1992 while Halifax, Montreal and Toronto police addressed juvenile prostitution and, in particular, exiting schemes.

It also proposed bylaws to regulate dating and escort services, exotic entertainers and massage parlours, including licensing, which were subsequently enacted.

Toronto also enacted a bylaw to restrict intimate erotic lap dancing in August 1995 to prohibit physical contact, including touching, between patrons and attendants, with a maximum fine of $50,000, and revocation of licences.

(3d) 257 [1995], it was held that the bylaw was enacted for valid objectives relating to business regulation, including health, safety and the prevention of crime, and did not usurp the Government's jurisdiction over criminal law.

Other cities saw Edmonton and Toronto as examples of allowing municipal intervention without being ultra vires and the 1990s saw Victoria, Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Sault Ste.

Supreme Court for an injunction to restrain, as a common law public nuisance, prostitution‑related activity in a residential area of Vancouver.

The Traffic and Highway Acts in several provinces have been amended to allow police to seize, impound and sell vehicles of clients.

Ontario went further in 2002 with a civil law allowing the province to ask the courts to freeze, seize and forfeit to the Crown property that is the proceeds of unlawful activity including prostitution, without involving criminal charges.

Other provincial Acts authorize the suspension of a driver's licence on conviction of a prostitution related offence involving a motor vehicle.

[10] The Justice Minister established a committee in June 1983 to enquire into prostitution and pornography, headed by Paul Fraser, which reported in April 1985.

The other members of the committee were: Susan Clark, Mount St Vincent University, Halifax; Mary Eberts, a civil litigator specialising in equality issues, from Toronto; Jean-Paul Gilbert, a member of the National Parole Board, Montreal; John McLaren, Dean of Law at the University of Windsor; Andrée Ruffo, a lawyer practising in family law in Montreal; Joan Wallace, a lawyer specialising in human rights, Vancouver.

The Committee recommended addressing social inequalities between genders, assisting women and youth in need, and funding of community groups involved with prostitution.

While the Committee (with one dissension) did not support complete decriminalisation, it suggested thorough revision of the criminal law, with tougher penalties for street prostitution because of the harm of disturbance and nuisance.

Bawdy house provisions were to be amended to allow up to two workers on a premise as out was illogical to permit prostitution but make it illegal to perform it anywhere.

The Committee recommended repeal of the offences of procuring and living on the avails of prostitution, limiting this to the use of force, threats or other coercive or threatening behaviour.

The Committee concluded its report as follows: [10] Prostitution cannot be dealt with on a piecemeal basis, but only by carefully linking the provisions on each aspect of prostitution-related activity.

Interviews were conducted with police officers, Crown prosecutors, defence lawyers, judges, prostitutes, customers, pimps, social agency staff, and business people and residents.

Its three recommendations were the following: - (1) that the departments responsible for justice, health and welfare, and employment, at all levels of government, develop programs to provide start‑up and core funding to community‑based agencies providing integrated, holistic programs accessible and responsive to the needs of male and female prostitutes wishing to leave the street solicitation trade; - (2) that the Identification of Criminals Act be amended to allow for the fingerprinting and photographing of those charged under section 213 of the Criminal Code, whether as prostitutes or as customers; and - (3) that section 213 of the Criminal Code be amended to provide sentencing judges with the discretion to prohibit persons convicted of street solicitation involving a motor vehicle, in addition to any other penalty imposed, from driving a motor vehicle for a period not to exceed three months.

The new section was welcomed by citizens and authorities, but critics claimed it would merely displace the phenomenon, endanger workers, and give the police and court too much discretionary power.

[10] Following a declaration by the Supreme Court in December 2013 that certain key provisions in the existing law were unconstitutional, Peter MacKay introduced Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act in June 2014.

[12] Unlike previous legislation, C-36 primarily targets those who buy sex, and seeks to reduce the demand for prostitution—a term which was widely replaced with the euphemism "sexual services for consideration".

Emily Symons, chairperson of POWER, an advocacy group for prostitutes in the Ottawa region, argued that C-36 "not only reintroduces laws deemed unconstitutional in a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court only one year ago — it actually makes them worse.