Bill C-36 · 41th Parliament · Stephen Harper
Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act
An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other Acts
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedJune 4, 2014
- Debated in principleJune 16, 2014
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberOct. 6, 2014
- Passed the second chamberNov. 3, 2014
- Became lawNov. 5, 2014
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Stephen HarperPrime Minister
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
What it set out to do
The pre-release version of this Legislative Summary is now available. Parliamentarians and their staff can obtain a copy by submitting a request or contacting the Library of Parliament. Members of the public can obtain a copy by contacting the Information Service at the Library of Parliament. On 4 June 2014, the Minister of Justice introduced Bill C-36, An Act to amend the Criminal Code in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act) in the House of Commons and it was given first reading. Bill C-36 amends the Criminal Code to, among other things, • create an offence that prohibits purchasing sexual services or communicating in any place for that purpose; • create an offence that prohibits receiving a material benefit that derived from the commission of an offence referred to in paragraph (a); • create an offence that prohibits the advertisement of sexual services offered for sale and to authorize the courts to order the seizure of materials containing such advertisements and their removal from the Internet; • modernize the offence tha…
Summary by the Library of Parliament.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
80% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (15,560 words introduced, 10,071 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent narrowed
The main change narrowed the ban on communicating to sell sexual services from any place near where minors could reasonably be expected to any place next to a school ground, playground or daycare centre. Minor additions clarified related offences involving persons believed to be under 18.
- The location for the selling communication offence was made more specific.
Before: “that is or is next to a place where persons under the age of 18 can reasonably be expected to be present;”
After: “that is or is next to a school ground, playground or daycare centre;”
- A new clause addressed belief about age in related offences.
After: “a person who is, or who the accused believes is, under the age of 18 years, for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an offence with respect to that person under subsection 153(1), section 155, 163.1, 170, 171 or 279.011 or subsection 279.02(2), 279.0”
How precisely it is written
mostly preciseChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill relies on defined terms, fixed dollar fines, minimum prison terms, age cut-offs and listed locations to mark prohibited conduct. Some key elements still turn on purpose, knowledge or indirect derivation that invite factual disputes.
Open to argument
“knowing that it is obtained by or derived directly or indirectly from the commission of an offence”
The phrase 'derived directly or indirectly' leaves open how remote a connection may still trigger liability.“exercises control, direction or influence over the movements of that person”
Broad verbs without further definition allow argument over what level of influence crosses the line.“in the context of a commercial enterprise that offers sexual services for consideration”
The term 'commercial enterprise' is undefined and depends on a factual characterization.
Clear-cut
“that is or is next to a school ground, playground or daycare centre”
Geographic limits are tied to specific, observable places rather than subjective harm assessments.“a person under the age of 18 years”
Bright-line age threshold eliminates debate over maturity or appearance.
Discretion. Almost no power is delegated to ministers or regulations; the text places all operative rules inside the Criminal Code itself.
Challenging the law itself. Defined terms and numeric thresholds reduce vagueness claims, yet the broad purpose and knowledge elements could still support a Charter s. 7 overbreadth argument.
Disputing a charge under it. Specific fines, ages and locations make many factual disputes straightforward, but the 'directly or indirectly' and 'control or influence' wording still permits contest on the margins.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
not effective
The 2022 statutory review by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights found that PCEPA causes serious harm to sex workers by increasing danger and vulnerability, failing to protect exploited persons as intended. No departmental evaluations, Auditor General reports, or Parliamentary Budget Officer assessments of goal achievement were identified, while court rulings have upheld constitutionality without addressing effectiveness.
- Preventing Harm in the Canadian Sex Industry: A Review of the Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act (Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, June 2022)reviewThe Act causes serious harm to those engaged in sex work by making the work more dangerous and recommends repealing sections 213 and 286.4 of the Criminal Code.
- R. v. Kloubakov, 2023 ABCA 287 (Alberta Court of Appeal)courtOverturned a lower court finding of unconstitutionality for PCEPA provisions on material benefit and procuring, confirming their scope aligns with legislative objectives.
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.