POWER and the Sex Work Law Debate in Canada

Few areas of Canadian public policy divide opinion as sharply as the legal treatment of sex work. Advocacy groups run by current and former sex workers sit at one end of the conversation, while abolitionist organizations, police, lawmakers and researchers occupy other positions. One of the longer-running voices from inside the trade is an Ottawa-Gatineau organization called POWER.

An interview with a sex worker linked to the group, conducted while a constitutional challenge was moving through the courts, offers a snapshot of how members described their work, motives and demands. The summary below treats those themes as neutral background and does not endorse any side.

What POWER is

The name stands for Prostitutes of Ottawa-Gatineau Work Educate and Resist. The group described itself as a non-profit, volunteer-run organization. Membership was described as open to people of any gender who identify as former or current sex workers, across every sector of the trade: dancers, street-based workers, people who work from a residence or travel to clients, and phone workers. Allies who shared its goals could join as well.

The board member interviewed said she first sought out peers. Sex work, she explained, can be isolating because there is usually no shared workplace where colleagues cross paths. Her role covered media relations and public education.

The court challenge

At the time, an appeal in Ontario was testing several Criminal Code provisions tied to prostitution, among them those on keeping a common bawdy house, living on the avails and communicating in public. POWER and a Toronto sex worker organization took part as interveners. Observers who followed the hearing described the judges as probing in their questions to government lawyers, and the case was expected to reach the Supreme Court of Canada.

That expectation proved correct. The Supreme Court later struck down the three provisions, and Parliament responded with a new framework that criminalizes the purchase of sexual services. Debate over that framework continues.

Decriminalization and its critics

The interviewee argued for full decriminalization, meaning the removal of criminal penalties for selling and arranging sex between adults. In her account, that change would let workers hire security, work from home or pool resources with colleagues, and report violence to police without fearing arrest or eviction. She also noted that the Criminal Code already contains offences covering force and coercion, and she questioned the size of commonly cited trafficking figures.

Critics, including many women's groups and abolitionist advocates, hold that commercial sex is inherently exploitative and that legal tolerance can raise demand and the risk of trafficking. Supporters of decriminalization reply that criminal law pushes the trade underground. Both camps cite research, and the evidence is contested.

Stigma and daily realities

The interviewee described stigma that ranged from intrusive questions to denial that sex work is a real occupation. She tied it to criminalization and linked it to the vulnerability of street-based workers, pointing to cases of violence against marginalized women in Vancouver as an example of how such women can be overlooked.

She also described clients with a wide mix of motives, including fantasy, companionship and, for some people with disabilities, a rare route to sexual contact. These claims reflect one worker's experience, and researchers note that experiences across the trade vary widely.