Liew - FINAL - Feb 20 20


Correspondence Address: Jamie Liew, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, K1N 
6N5; Email: Jamie.liew@uottawa.ca 

ISSN: 1911-4788 

Volume 14, Issue 21 90-116, 2020 

The Invisible Women: Migrant and 
Immigrant Sex Workers and Law Reform in 
Canada 

JAMIE CHAI YUN LIEW 
University of Ottawa, Canada 

ABSTRACT  This article examines how migrant and immigrant sex workers have been 
rendered invisible before the courts and parliament in the reform of laws regarding 
sex work in Canada. A discourse analysis of the expansive legal record in the Bedford 
case and the transcripts of Parliamentary debates and testimony before Standing 
Committees confirm the lack of nuanced discussion on how criminal law reform could 
impact migrant and immigrant sex workers. As such, while the case of Bedford and 
the resulting change in the law made by Parliament have been celebrated as a win for 
some sex workers as an acknowledgment, recognition and judicial validation of 
experiences by legal institutions of sex workers, a sub-group of women – migrant and 
immigrant sex workers – remain in the shadows. This article examines how law 
excludes migrant and immigrant sex workers; it is a starting point for research on 
how migrant and immigrant sex workers may participate in future legal reform.

KEYWORDS  migrant; immigration; race; sex worker; prostitution; immigrant; law; 
Bedford 

Introduction 

“The Invisible Girl can do it better.” This is a famous catchphrase of one of 
the Fantastic Four super heroes, Sue Storm, “Invisible Girl” or now “Invisible 
Woman” who gained her super powers from cosmic rays on a trip to space. 
Portrayed as a female voice of reason, her powers to turn herself invisible 
were almost useless on the battlefield and she was frequently portrayed as the 
helpless female, constantly in need of rescue.  

The Invisible Woman, while a fictional character, has parallels in our more 
corporeal world. Being invisible does not garner power in legal discourse. 
This article is about how migrant and immigrant sex workers were rendered 
invisible in discourse before the courts and parliament in the reform of laws 



Migrant and Immigrant Sex Workers and Law Reform in Canada 

 
Studies in Social Justice, Volume 14, Issue 1, 90116, 2020 

91 

regarding sex work and prostitution in Canada, and why their exclusion in the 
law reform projects is problematic. 

Acknowledgment and recognition of how one experiences law by legal 
institutions are not benign. As one scholar writes: 

 
…by simply acknowledging the complex, creative histories of women like Amy 
Leibovitch, Valerie Scott, and Terri-Jean Bedford, by judicially seeing and so 
validating the experiences of sex workers in rendering a decision, the case [of 
Bedford] signaled a first step toward undoing the pervasive invisibility of 
Canadian sex workers. (Sampson, 2014, p. 171) 

 
Although this statement may be true, there is a sub-group of women who 
remain in the shadows – migrant and immigrant sex workers. As one scholar 
notes, “The erasure of marginalized voices in the public sphere is a problem 
of particularly grave concern, even though it can be difficult to perceive” 
(Bunch, 2014, p. 41). The erasure of voices is a “form of epistemic violence” 
which may include “subtle and socially sanctioned methods of undermining 
that are sometimes couched in the language of ‘helping,’ ‘protecting’ and 
‘saving’” (p. 41).  

In examining the journey of legal reform for sex work in Canada, this study 
continues the work of other scholars who examine how ethnic, migrant and 
immigrant women, and in particular sex workers, are considered in law 
(Demleitner, 2001; Fitzpatrick & Kelly, 1998; Macklin, 2003; Matsuda, 
1987; Satterthwaite, 2005; Stasiulis & Bakan, 2003; Sullivan, 2003). 

A discourse analysis of the documents and transcripts of the Bedford case 
and discussions leading to reform of the Criminal Code at parliament was 
undertaken. Over 26,000 pages of the legal record of Bedford and transcripts 
of the testimony of 77 people in parliament were reviewed to examine 
whether and how immigrant and migrant sex workers participated in the court 
or parliament. The aim of this examination is to contribute to scholarly 
conversation regarding who is represented in legal reform projects that affect 
sex workers, how different groups of sex workers are participating, if at all, in 
legal reform, and what judicial decisions and legislative changes include or 
omit due to the involvement of particular groups of sex workers (or lack 
thereof). Further, this research hopes to generate questions about whether and 
how to include immigrant and migrant women in future endeavours to change 
the law. 
 
 
Setting the Scene: The Exclusion of the Migrant and Immigrant Sex 
Worker 
 
Defining Terms 
 
In setting the scene for how Canada has recently changed the laws 
surrounding sex work, a number of terms are used. First, I refer to both 



Jamie Liew 

 
Studies in Social Justice, Volume 14, Issue 1, 90-116, 2020 
	

92 

“migrant” and “immigrant” sex workers. “Migrant” sex workers are those 
who may not have immigration status in Canada, or have temporary or 
precarious status in Canada. “Immigrant” sex workers are those who may be 
new citizens or those who have permanent residence status in Canada, but are 
also “ethnic.” I use the term “ethnic” to embody persons who are identified 
by their differences through race, nationality, culture, often in an intersection 
with other markers of social difference such as gender, class and sexuality. In 
referencing both migrant and immigrant sex workers, I recognize previous 
research that indicates that immigrant sex workers, and thus those with status, 
may also experience differential treatment from the law as a result of their 
identification as immigrant or ethnic (Ham, 2015). 

Secondly, the paper acknowledges that the politics of sex work has largely 
focused on contestation between those who view it as legitimate work and 
those who view selling sex as a form of coercive sexual exploitation 
(Outshoorn, 2005, p. 141). Of course, politics around sex work are nuanced 
and complicated; these complexities are beyond of the scope of this paper. 
Efforts by sex workers and those working with sex workers are focused on 
trying to keep sex workers alive and out of harm’s way, and on advocating 
for legislative and policy changes to make those objectives more achievable 
(see Pivot Legal, n.d.; NSWP, 2016; Canadian Alliance for Sex Work Law 
Reform, 2019). 

Those who view sex work as broadly exploitative see it as a consequence 
of patriarchy and capitalism that has manifested into the ultimate 
commodification and exploitation of female bodies (Barry, 1996; Dworkin, 
1993; Farley, 2006). Women are seen as victims of their labour, with sex 
work being a product of lack of choice: “women in prostitution are observed 
to be prostituted through choices precluded, options restricted, possibilities 
denied” (MacKinnon, 2011, p. 274). Given that proponents of this view 
believe that all sex work is coerced, there is a tendency to view sex work and 
human trafficking as one and the same, while also identifying the sex 
industry as a driving force behind human trafficking (Farley et al., 2004). 

In contrast, those who view sex work as legitimate work see it as a product 
of the agency of sex workers (Bruckert & Hannem, 2013, p. 43). Proponents 
of this view assert that sex work itself is not inherently dangerous nor 
exploitative, but that potentially harmful work conditions are manifested 
through law and social stigma (see Chu & Glass, 2013; Craig, 2011; 
Kempadoo & Doezema, 1998; Krusi, Pacey, Bird, Taylor, Chettiar & 
Shannon, 2014). In addition, they critique the view that equating consensual 
sex work with human trafficking is harmful, as it paints all sex workers as 
victims. This view renders invisible the anti-sex work and anti-migration 
laws that make it possible to deny sex workers protections and rights, thus 
making them vulnerable to exploitation (Jeffrey, 2005). 

Finally, there are others who see the value in the interplay of both structure 
and agency; that sex workers agency is necessarily tied with the structural 



Migrant and Immigrant Sex Workers and Law Reform in Canada 

 
Studies in Social Justice, Volume 14, Issue 1, 90116, 2020 

93 

and relational powers that they live with, and that it is not simply a binary 
experience at all times (Bungay, Halpin, Atchison & Johnston, 2011). Rather, 
there is complex interplay of both structure and agency, and also a 
heterogeneity of perspectives by sex workers and multiplicities of structure-
agency interrelationships (Bungay, Halpin, Atchison, & Johnston, 2011). 

In this study I am not interested in resolving the dichotomy between choice 
or no choice that persists in many discussions of the identities of those 
involved in sex work. The article uses the term “sex worker” to recognize 
what persons do rather than who the persons are (Showden & Majic, 2014). 
In doing so, I recognize that migrants and immigrants involved in sex work 
have agency (Showden & Majic, 2014), and assume that recognition of sex 
workers having agency may not be synonymous with their identity and also 
that sex workers who may be victimized may also have agency. The 
“agency” of sex work is not necessarily a “free choice,” but may be a 
complex, knowing negotiation (Showden & Majic, 2014). I use the term 
“prostitution” only when quoting (e.g., from legislation) or referring to 
others’ statements.  
 
 
Bedford: Challenging Criminal Laws Regarding Sex Work in the Courts 
 
Prior to 2014, three provisions of the Criminal Code in Canada criminalized 
the following activities related to sex work: communicating in public for the 
“purposes of engaging in prostitution;” living off the “avails of prostitution;” 
and keeping a “bawdy-house” (Criminal Code of Canada, 1985, s. 213; s. 
212; ss. 197 & 210). In 2009, three current and former sex workers, Terri 
Jean Bedford, Amy Lebovitch, and Valerie Scott brought an application 
seeking declarations that these three provisions in the Criminal Code related 
to sex work were unconstitutional (Canada (AG) v Bedford, 2013, para. 3). 
These applicants argued that all three provisions infringed section 7 of the 
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (1982) by preventing them from 
“implementing certain safety measures – such as hiring security guards or 
‘screening’ potential clients – that could protect them from violent clients” 
(Canada (AG) v Bedford, 2013, para. 6). The applicants also argued that the 
provision dealing with communicating in public for the purposes of engaging 
in prostitution also violated section 2(b) of the Charter. 

The constitutional challenge made its way to the Supreme Court of Canada 
where Chief Justice McLachlin stated that the three impugned provisions 
were “primarily concerned with preventing public nuisance, as well as the 
exploitation of prostitutes” (Canada (AG) v Bedford, 2013, para. 4). She 
acknowledged that “prostitution itself is not illegal” but that Parliament had 
“confined lawful prostitution to two categories: street prostitution and ‘out-
calls’ – where the prostitute goes out and meets the client at a designated 
location, such as the client’s home” (Canada (AG) v Bedford, 2013, para. 5). 
The Supreme Court held that: 



Jamie Liew 

 
Studies in Social Justice, Volume 14, Issue 1, 90-116, 2020 
	

94 

The prohibitions at issue do not merely impose conditions on how prostitutes 
operate. They go a critical step further, by imposing dangerous conditions on 
prostitution; they prevent people engaged in a risky – but legal – activity from 
taking steps to protect themselves from the risks. (Canada (AG) v Bedford, 2013, 
para. 60) 

 
In examining the constitutionality of the provisions that prohibit keeping a 

common bawdy-house, the Chief Justice wrote that the prohibition “prevents 
prostitutes from working in a fixed indoor location, which would be safer 
than working on the streets or meeting clients at different locations,” that it 
interferes with provision of health checks and preventative health measures, 
and prevents resort to safe houses, all of which would help reduce risks of 
being exposed to violence (Canada (AG) v Bedford, 2013, para. 63). With 
regard to the provision of living off the avails of prostitution, the Chief 
Justice stated that the law prevented prostitutes from hiring bodyguards, 
drivers and receptionists, all measures that would enhance safety (para. 66). 
Finally, with regard to communicating in a public place, the Chief Justice 
wrote “face-to-face communication is an ‘essential tool’ in enhancing the 
street prostitutes’ safety” and that the “effect of displacing prostitutes from 
familiar areas, where they may be supported by friends and regular 
customers, to more isolated areas” made them more vulnerable (para 69; para 
70). In general, the Supreme Court held that the “impugned laws make this 
lawful activity more dangerous” and that the provisions were arbitrary, 
overbroad, and grossly disproportionate to the objective of the legislation 
(para 87; paras. 98-100; paras. 101-102; paras. 103-109; para. 123). Finally, 
the court held that while, “Parliament has the power to regulate against 
nuisances” it cannot do so “at the cost of the health, safety and lives of 
prostitutes” (para. 136). 

In finding the provisions unconstitutional, the court declared the laws 
invalid, but suspended the declaration for one year to allow for Parliament to 
change the laws. 
 
 
Parliament’s Response to Bedford 
 
The Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act or Bill C-36 
(2015) received royal assent on November 6, 2014. This Bill amends the 
Criminal Code and encompasses the government’s response to the Bedford 
case.  

The preamble to Bill C-36 (2015) outlines the shift in legislative objective 
from treating prostitution as a form of nuisance toward treating it as a form of 
exploitation, objectification of human bodies, and commodification of sexual 
activity. The government sees prostitution as being harmful, both physically 
and psychologically, to women and children, and also to society at large, and 



Migrant and Immigrant Sex Workers and Law Reform in Canada 

 
Studies in Social Justice, Volume 14, Issue 1, 90116, 2020 

95 

aims to bring an end to the practice. In particular, the amendments to the 
Criminal Code seek to denounce and prohibit “the demand for prostitution” 
as “[t]he purchase of sexual services creates the demand for prostitution, 
which maintains and furthers pre-existing power imbalances, and ensures that 
vulnerable persons remain subjected to it” (Bill C-36, 2015, preamble) 

The Criminal Code now prohibits: the purchasing of sexual services or 
communicating for the purpose of obtaining sex for consideration (s. 286.1)1 
including in a public place or in public view or next to a school ground, 
playground or daycare centre (s. 213 (1.1)); receiving financial or material 
benefit derived from trafficking persons (s. 279.02) or activities that involve 
obtaining sexual services for consideration (s. 286.2); concealing, removing, 
withholding or destroying any travel document that belongs to another person 
or any document that establishes another person’s identity or immigration 
status (s. 279.03); procuring, recruiting, harbouring, holding, concealing, or 
exercising control over a person to offer or provide sexual services for 
consideration (s. 286.3); and knowingly advertising an offer to provide sexual 
services for consideration (s. 286.4). There are two immunity provisions. No 
person will be prosecuted if they receive material benefits derived from the 
provision of their own sexual services (Criminal Code, 1985, s. 286 (5)1). As 
well, a person will not be prosecuted as if the advertisement of sexual 
services is offered by an individual for her own offering of sexual services. 
Further, no person will be prosecuted for aiding, abetting, conspiring or 
attempting to commit a crime or being an accessory after the fact or 
counseling if the offence relates to the offering of their own sexual services 
(s. 285.5(2)). 

The main difference between the laws pre-Bedford and the laws post-
Bedford is the legislative objective. The recent legislation has shifted its 
objective from preventing nuisance to protecting communities and vulnerable 
people. A further difference is that the government has criminalized the act of 
prostitution by targeting “johns” or clients. Thus, every time someone is 
procuring money for sexual acts, a crime is being committed, reinforcing the 
governmental objective of abolishing prostitution “to the greatest extent 
possible” (Department of Justice, 2014). 
 
 
Rendering Migrant and Immigrant Sex Workers Invisible in Law 
Reform 
 
As Sonia Lawrence writes, the Bedford case and the passage of Bill C-36, 
“offer a window into the identification, mobilization, and reception of 
‘experts’ in the courts, the legislative process, and the public sphere” (2015, 
p. 5). Lawrence questions, “how the mobilization of expertise works in legal 

                                                
1 Criminal Code, s. 286.1 also provides more severe penalties if a person under the age of 18 is 
involved. Criminal Code of Canada, Revised Statutes of Canada (1985, c. C-46). s. 268.1.  



Jamie Liew 

 
Studies in Social Justice, Volume 14, Issue 1, 90-116, 2020 
	

96 

arguments and the relative narrowness of a test case ‘win’” suggesting that 
the “cause”, to decriminalize sex work, may not have been advanced. She 
points out that the “written word of experts rather than in-court testimony” 
was deployed, and that a “sizable body of experiential expertise from current 
and former sex trade workers on both sides of the debate” revealed “a wide 
range of contexts in which sex work is performed, and a wide range of 
reactions and conclusions based on that experience” (Lawrence, 2015, pp. 5-
6). Despite this, as discussed below, much was also excluded. Lawrence 
writes that the narrative created in Bedford and in Parliament, “obscure and 
deny structural problems” and “ignores the role of the state in creating or 
failing to alleviate these problems” (2015, p. 6). As argued below, much more 
has been ignored in this process. Like Lawrence (2015, p. 7), in this article I 
ask for deeper reflection on how litigation and law reform deploy experiential 
voice.  
 
 
Discourse and Evidence in Bedford 
 
The material in the Bedford case was vast. By the time the case reached the 
highest court in the country, this material included a record as well as 
pleadings provided by a dozen interveners. At the Ontario Court of Appeal, 
seven interveners joined the case,2 and at the Supreme Court of Canada, the 
number of interveners grew to 12.3 Some interveners were coalitions of 
multiple organizations.4  

The record from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice provided the 
evidentiary basis against which the criminal provisions were scrutinized. It 
contained 86 volumes and 26,421 pages. These pages do not include the 
pleadings provided by the parties. The record includes affidavits of the parties 

                                                
2 At the Ontario Court of Appeal the interveners included: British Columbia Civil Liberties 
Association; Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network/BC Centre for Excellence on HIV/AIDS; 
Canadian Civil Liberties Association; Christian Legal Fellowship/The Catholic Civil Rights 
League/Real Women of Canada; Prostitutes of Ottawa/Gatineau Work Educate and Resist 
(POWER)/Maggie’s: The Toronto Sex Workers’ Action Project; Providing Alternatives 
Counselling Education (PACE) Society/The Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against 
Violence Society (SWUAV)/Pivot Legal Society; Women’s Coalition for the Abolition of 
Prostitution. 
3 At the Supreme Court of Canada, the interveners included: Procureur General du Quebec; 
Aboriginal Legal Services of Toronto; David Asper Centre for Constitutional Rights; Women’s 
Coalition for the Abolition of Prostitution; Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, British 
Columbia Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS and HIV & AIDS Legal Clinic Ontario; The 
Evangelical Fellowship of Canada; Asian Women Coalition Ending Prostitution; British 
Columbia Civil Liberties Association; Christian Legal Fellowship, Catholic Civil Rights League 
and Real Women of Canada; Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society, 
PACE Society and Pivot Legal Society; Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS; and 
L’Institut Simone de Beauvoir. 
4 See for example: The Women’s Coalition for the Abolition of Prostitution. 



Migrant and Immigrant Sex Workers and Law Reform in Canada 

 
Studies in Social Justice, Volume 14, Issue 1, 90116, 2020 

97 

and of expert witnesses, transcripts of examinations and cross-examinations 
of the parties and witnesses, and their supporting documents, including 
academic literature and research.  

The critical discourse analysis undertaken in this paper focuses on the 
record produced for the hearing at first instance (the trial) at the Ontario 
Superior Court of Justice because it provides the evidence and therefore the 
basis upon which the parties grounded their positions. The record is also 
where we directly hear the voices of sex workers, their advocates, and experts 
who research in this area. The aim of the analysis is to gauge whether and 
how migrant and immigrant sex workers engaged in this legal proceeding, 
and to prompt questions of what was included or missing in the legal record. 

The 26,421 pages were first searched for the following terms: “migrant,” 
“immigrant,” “immigrate,” “immigration,” “trafficked,” “trafficker,” 
“trafficking,” “citizen,” “citizenship,” “status,” “refugee,” “foreign,” 
“foreigner,” “permanent resident,” “permanent residence,” “visa,” “ethnic,” 
“race,” “racial,” and “racialized.” These terms were chosen as a starting point 
to identify possible discussions in the transcripts on migrant and immigrant 
sex workers. Some terms, such as “permanent resident” and “permanent 
residence” seldom appear. Others were present in the record, but did not 
provide any valuable reference to migrant and immigrant sex workers. For 
example, the word “citizen” appears frequently, but mainly refers to citizens 
writ large such as the protection of citizens, or how “ordinary” citizens are 
affected (see, e.g., Bedford Record, 2013, Vol. 3, pp. 572, 727, 591, 706; Vol. 
23 pp. 6445, 6447, 6448, 6453, 6454, 6509; Vol. 22 pp. 6445, 6447, 6448, 
6453, 6454, 6509). The word “status”, similarly, garnered other meanings 
such as social or economic status or “Status of Women.” The word “foreign” 
also made many benign appearances in the record (see, e.g., Bedford Record, 
2013, Vol. 3 pp. 310, 352, 407, 409, 433, 461, 465, 469, 484, 297, 306, 365, 
544; Volume 7 at 1711; Vol. 9 pp. 2203, 2214, 2220, 2226, 2230, 2240, 
2261, 2279, 2314, 2321, 2444; Vol. 3 at 403). Other terms, such as “race,” 
“racial,” and “ethnic” did not point to many discussions on migrant and 
immigrant sex workers, but to Aboriginal persons, and racial background in 
general.5 

The record acknowledges the absence or lack of information regarding 
migrant and immigrant sex workers. Examples of such acknowledgement 
include statements such as: “we have limited primary empirical research on 
three groups engaged in the sex trade in particular, and they are minors, new 
immigrants, and migrant workers”; “we’re very concerned about those kinds 
of gaps because we do know that policymakers and others are making 
decisions based on some of the stereotypes of these particular individuals”; 
and “we also know very little about the experiences of new immigrants, or 

                                                
5 See, e.g., Bedford Record, Vol. 7 in general; Vol. 8 pp. 1957, 2012, 2051, 2120; Vol. 9 pp. 
2239, 2323, 2329, 2412, 2423, 2446, 2462; Vol. 24 p. 6713 where there was a discussion of 
demographics.  



Jamie Liew 

 
Studies in Social Justice, Volume 14, Issue 1, 90-116, 2020 
	

98 

the congruence, if any, between their personal stories and those in the media 
concerning sex slaves” (Bedford Record, 2013, Vol. 25, p. 7215; p. 7216; p. 
7410).6 Further, “There has been little focus on the role of gender, culture, 
ethnicity and class in understanding the experience of sex work” (Bedford 
Record, 2013, Vol. 5, p. 1086). 

Many of the references to migrant and immigrant sex workers were 
embedded in documents, articles or presentations that were exhibits or 
attachments of affidavits. For example, in a presentation made to a House of 
Commons Subcommittee in 2005 that was attached as exhibit F of the 
affidavit of Frances M. Shaver, this was provided regarding migrant and 
immigrant sex workers: 

 
Finally, criminalization impedes current and former sex workers’ ability to travel 
and cross borders. It also prevents workers from sponsoring foreign-national 
partners or family members for permanent residency. For people entering Canada 
for employment in the sex trade, the criminalization of both prostitution 
establishments and employer-employee relationships renders legitimate work 
permits impossible. This positions most migrant sex workers as non-status and 
grossly increases their vulnerability to exploitation, as well as their risk for arrest, 
detention and deportation. At the level of our most fundamental rights and 
freedoms, the criminalization of prostitution leads to incarceration and deprivation 
of liberty, and it is typically the most marginalized workers, specifically those 
who are migrant or street-based, who are most likely to be deprived of their 
freedom in this manner. (Bedford Record, 2013, Vol. 24, p. 6967)7 

 
When migrant and immigrant sex workers were mentioned in the record, they 
were mainly as afterthoughts or as generalizations. For example, Valerie 
Scott stated that in dealing with a migrant sex worker, “As it is, we can’t get 
to her. She’s terrified of the police, of being deported” (Bedford Record, 
2013, Vol. 4, pp. 592, 716). Another example is a report provided as exhibit 
A to the affidavit of Kara Gilles quoting a sex worker participant in a law 
enforcement survey: 
 

Despite these low enforcement levels, sex-working participants overwhelmingly 
expressed continued anxiety about the impact of the law. Two women drew 
comparisons between the criminalization of prostitution and the illegalized status 
of undocumented workers. As one stated, “it would be like being an illegal 
immigrant in the country – you never know when they’re going to send you back 
home. It’s just that shitty, crappy, paranoid feeling that just hangs over your 
shoulders every day.” (Bedford Record, 2013, Vol. 6, p. 1370) 

 

                                                
6 See also Vol. 6 p. 1471 where migrant and immigrant sex workers were excluded from a study.  
7 See also, e.g., Vol. 5 p. 1073 and p. 1226 where exhibit B of Susan Davis’ affidavit containing 
a Draft Action Plan called “Living in Community: Balancing Perspectives on Vancouver’s Sex 
Industry” also references migrant sex workers and also Volume 6 at p. 1370 or exhibit A of the 
affidavit of Kara Gilles. 



Migrant and Immigrant Sex Workers and Law Reform in Canada 

 
Studies in Social Justice, Volume 14, Issue 1, 90116, 2020 

99 

With regard to mentions of trafficking, most references were in 
supplementary material or the exhibits of affidavits that contained research, 
reports or other academic material. Not all references were about 
international trafficking of women and children. Some referred to the link 
between sex work and the trafficking of drugs (see, e.g., Bedford Record, 
2013, Vol.23 p. 6786). The bulk of the discussion related to trafficking 
related to situations of domestic trafficking (see, e.g., Bedford Record, Vol. 5 
p. 1146; Vol. 21 p. 6198). The discussion that did talk about international 
trafficking recognized the gap in knowledge. For example, “As with 
migration patterns, patterns of trafficking and force and the amount of 
violation concerned with them, still remain scarcely and very badly 
documented…” (Bedford Record, 2013, Vol. 20, p. 5655). One exhibit stated, 
“Though there is little accurate information on the extent of trafficking in 
Canada, it’s known that Canada is a country of origin, transit and destination 
for trafficked persons” (Bedford Record, 2013, Vol. 5, p. 1074 ). Finally, 
some discussion turned to the experiences other countries have with migrant 
and immigrant sex workers (see, e.g., Bedford Record, Vol. 20, pp. 5613 & 
5639). 
 
 
Discourse and Evidence at Parliament 
 
Following the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Bedford, the 
government responded with Bill C-36, the Protection of Communities and 
Exploited Persons Act, which received Royal Assent on November 6, 2014. 
Bill C-36 was debated in both the House of Commons and the Senate and 
was reviewed in the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and 
Human Rights between July 7th and 15th, 2016. Seventy-seven people 
appeared before the committee as individuals or on behalf of an organization. 

A critical discourse analysis was undertaken of the transcripts of the 
proceedings to glean how much consideration was given to how the law may 
impact migrant or immigrant sex workers. The transcripts were searched for 
the same terms used to examine the Bedford record, namely “migrant,” 
“immigrant,” “immigrate,” “immigration,” “trafficked,” “trafficker,” 
“trafficking,” “citizen,” “citizenship,” “status,” “refugee,” “foreign,” 
“foreigner,” “permanent resident,” “permanent residence,” “visa,” “ethnic,” 
“race,” “racial,” and “racialized,” These terms were chosen as a starting point 
to identify areas in the transcripts where there might be a discussion on 
migrant sex workers 

During the House of Commons debates, the words “migrant,” “immigrant,” 
“immigrate,” “immigration,” “permanent resident,” and “permanent 
residence” did not make any appearances whatsoever. While the terms 
“refugee,” “racial,” “racialized,” “ethnic,” “status” and “citizen” made 
appearances, they were referred to in general and did not speak to the issue of 
racialized or immigrant sex workers particularly, but made references to 



Jamie Liew 

 
Studies in Social Justice, Volume 14, Issue 1, 90-116, 2020 
	

100 

marginalized (i.e., racialized, ethnic, refugee) communities writ large (see, 
e.g., Easter, Dechert, Goguen, & Galipeau, 2014, September 26). The word 
“trafficking” made the most appearances of the terms searched. In 
approximately 200 instances, there are references to victims of trafficking in 
the sex trade, and how trafficking is linked to prostitution. Some point out in 
the House of Commons debates that trafficking is already criminalized and 
that Bill C-36 does not fully address the issue of trafficking. 

The discussions at the House of Commons Standing Committee did not 
have the following words: “permanent residence” and “permanent resident,” 
indicating little discussion of new immigrants. The following words made 
one appearance throughout the transcripts: “refugee” (in the context of 
referring to the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act), and “visa” (in the 
context of a sex worker testifying she had a work visa in Australia). While 
other terms make an appearance in the transcript, most of them did not lead to 
any meaningful discussion about migrant or immigrant sex workers. For 
example, the term “status” did not refer to immigration status but often 
referred to social status or “Status of Women” (see, e.g., Beazley, 2014, July 
7). The term “ethnic” was found a few times, referring to advertising listing 
ethnicity of workers, or referring to research that indicated that there was no 
“over-representation of ethnic minorities, but rather an under-representation” 
of “ethnic minorities” in the “sex industry” (Dechert & Phillips, 2014, July 
10). 

Two witnesses before the Standing Committee spoke specifically about 
migrant and immigrant sex workers: Alice Lee and Suzanne Jay of the Asian 
Women Coalition Ending Prostitution. They expressed support for Bill C-36 
on the basis that those who exploit Asian women for prostitution use various 
methods to control them including confiscating immigration documents or 
passports, and threatening women who do not have regularized status with 
deportation and arrest. Alice Lee also stated that they appreciated that the bill 
recognized that trafficking and prostitution are intimately connected. 

Other than these two witnesses, migrant and immigrant women were 
referred to as an afterthought. For example, one witness noted that 
criminalization of clients under Bill C-36 will disproportionately affect 
Aboriginal women who rely on proceeds from prostitution to survive and that 
her testimony applies as well to migrant women (Sayers, 2014, July 7). 
Another example came from a witness who spoke about how Bill C-36 will 
affect her ability to post ads online, forcing her to use more dangerous 
methods to find clients. She noted that the “situation will likely affect 
migrants with precarious status especially gravely” (Laliberté, 2014, July 7). 
In another example, one witness discussed the difficulty some sex workers 
have in rebuilding their lives after criminal records are imposed on them. She 
stated, “This likely has a disproportionately devastating impact on migrant 
sex workers” (Redsky, 2014, July 7). 



Migrant and Immigrant Sex Workers and Law Reform in Canada 

 
Studies in Social Justice, Volume 14, Issue 1, 90116, 2020 

101 

Bill C-36 was also debated in the Senate. The terms “migrant,” 
“immigrant,” “immigration,” “status,” “refugee,” “foreign,” “foreigner,” 
“permanent resident,” “permanent residence,” “visa,” “ethnic,” “race,” 
“racialized” and “racial” were not used in the Senate debates. While the 
words “citizen” and “citizenship” appear a few times, they refer solely to the 
idea of protecting citizens, and to citizens in general such as “hard working 
citizens” and “vulnerable citizens” (Batters & Jaffer, 2014, Oct. 21). 
“Trafficking” and “trafficked” made a number of appearances. For example, 
Senator Mobina Jaffer stated: 

 
But this bill has been masquerading as something it is not. It is not there to protect 
the victims of the sex trade. We already have legislation in place for that. This is 
not an anti-trafficking bill or sexual assault bill… we need to allocate more 
resources to protecting these vulnerable members of our society. This bill will not 
achieve this, because that is not its purpose and those groups are not its primary 
focus. That is another conversation for another day… (2014, Oct. 21). 

 
Bill C-36 was also the subject of the Senate’s Standing Committee on Legal 
and Constitutional Affairs on September 9th, 10th, 11th, 17th, 29th and 30th, 
2014. The terms “permanent resident,” “permanent residence,” and “visa” 
were non-existent. Some terms, such as “foreign,” “foreigner,” “ethnic,” 
“race,” “racial,” “racialized” and “status” were used in general ways and did 
not point to any discussions with regards to migrant or immigrant sex 
workers. The terms “migrant,” “immigrant,” “immigrate” and “immigration” 
were almost non-existent and where they did appear, it is alongside the term 
“trafficked” or “trafficking,” which appeared most frequently amongst all the 
terms searched. For example, Suzanne Jay (who also testified in the House of 
Commons Standing Committee) noted that women working in Asian massage 
parlours are abused and exploited due to their precarious immigration status. 
She stated, “the bill does not change the balance of power that organized 
crime and human trafficking operations rely on because current immigration 
law supports the exploiter” (Jay, 2014, Sept. 9). Ms. Jay recommended 
granting status to women who arrive in Canada under exploitative 
circumstances. Valerie Scott, one of the litigants in Bedford, testified,  
 

The debate about Bill C-36 has been hijacked by individuals and groups who have 
focused on the evils of human trafficking and child exploitation. However, none 
of those laws were challenged and none were affected by the Supreme Court 
decision. This deliberate misdirection has taken the focus off what we should be 
discussing, which is how the proposed law will affect consensual adult sex work. 
(Scott, 2014, Sept. 10)  
 
The few comments related to migrant and immigrant sex workers, 

exploitation, abuse and trafficking should have raised red flags for those 
studying the Bill. The provisions amending the Criminal Code should not be 
looked at in isolation. It is not just the application or impact of these 
provisions on sex workers that is important to examine, but how these laws 



Jamie Liew 

 
Studies in Social Justice, Volume 14, Issue 1, 90-116, 2020 
	

102 

also interact with other laws in the Criminal Code and the Immigration and 
Refugee Protection Act, and also how these laws may be experienced 
differently by racialized persons who may or may not have precarious 
immigration status. If migrant and immigrant sex workers were not willing to 
testify, organizations like SWAN or Butterfly, for example, should have been 
asked to participate or provide submissions on their research. 
 
 
The Invisibility of Migrant and Immigrant Sex Workers 
 
Scholars have examined how women are rendered invisible in a number of 
different contexts including women in prisons or in conflict with criminal 
law, women who make allegations of sexual harassment or assault, 
Indigenous women, and racialized women, among others (see Belknap, 2014; 
Bullock & Jafri, 2000; Covington, 1998; Dobrowolsky, 2008; Gilchrist, 
2010; Jiwani & Young, 2006; Randall, 2010; Taylor, 1993; Worrall, 1990). 

Rendering ethnic, racialized, migrant and newly immigrant women 
invisible in law is not a new phenomenon. In examining whether the Charter 
of Rights and Freedoms extends protections to non-citizens, for example, 
Catherine Dauvergne states:  

 
Aside from the Refugee Convention cases, the Supreme Court of Canada has not 
made a single ruling in the Charter era that directly applies an international 
human rights norm to a non-citizen in Canada…All of these shifts mean that non-
citizens in Canada are more vulnerable to rights abuses than at any point in the 
previous thirty years. (2013, pp. 724, 728)  

 
Tanya Basok and Emily Carasco question the availability of protections 

available to non-citizens in Canada:  
 
Migrants admitted as residents are automatically protected by most laws that 
apply to citizens, although in practice, of course, visible minority immigrants in 
Canada, particularly women, often experience discriminatory and abusive 
treatment. Due to the precariousness of their status, temporary migrants, who are 
also often visible minorities, are even more likely than resident immigrants to 
experience various forms of exclusion and abuse. When non-citizens experience 
such abuses, what legal protections are available to them?” (2010, p. 344). 

 
They surmise that relative to citizens, “non-citizens are a group lacking in 
political power and as such vulnerable to having their interests overlooked” 
(Basok & Carasco, 2010, p. 342).  

In the context of immigration or migration, scholarship has looked at the 
absence of attention paid to the abuse of migrant workers (Hennebry, 2012; 
Sharma, 2000; Sharma 2002), migrant domestic or health care workers 
(Coloma, McElhinny Tungohan, Catungal & Davidson, 2012; Stasiulis & 



Migrant and Immigrant Sex Workers and Law Reform in Canada 

 
Studies in Social Justice, Volume 14, Issue 1, 90116, 2020 

103 

Bakan, 2003), and persons in immigration detention (Brane & Wang, 2013; 
Gros, 2017; Kronick & Rosseau, 2015), among other topics. Scholars have 
pointed to the invisibility of the migrant sex worker in discussions about sex 
work in Canada (Brock, Gillies, Oliver & Sutdhibhasilp, 2000; Jeffrey, 2005; 
MacIntosh, 2006; Oxman-Martinez, Martinez & Hanley, 2001). 

In her testimony at the Standing Committee, Legal Counsel for the Asian 
Women Coalition Ending Prostitution discussed intervening in the Bedford 
case:  

 
Our biggest challenge was the fact that among the many volumes of evidence that 
was before the court, there was a sum total of one line regarding Asian women in 
prostitution, and that one line was contained in the affidavit of a police officer, not 
an Asian woman, but a police officer, who deposed that women in bawdy houses 
were often illegal immigrants and residential brothels contained mainly Asian 
women. (Allison, 2014, July 10)  

 
NDP MP Francoise Boivin stated at the Standing Committee of Justice and 
Human Rights in relation to the intersection of human trafficking and sex 
workers, “There has not been much focus on the concept of human 
trafficking in Bill C-36” and, “…with such a quick process, not all the 
provinces were necessarily available or prepared to come speak within such a 
short timeframe on issues as profoundly complex as human trafficking, 
sexual exploitation and prostitution” (2014, July 15).  

Any meaningful discussion on migrant and immigrant sex workers did not 
include the voices of these women. For example, exhibit 3 of the affidavit of 
Deborah Brock is an article that recreates a dialogue that sex worker 
advocates and researchers have about migrant and immigrant sex workers, 
rather than including testimony of this neglected group of workers (Bedford 
Record, 2013, Vol. 9, pp. 2328-2336). Despite this, some witnesses at the 
Standing Committee testified that there was an inseparable link between 
trafficking and prostitution.8 In making this link, there was very little 
discussion of how how the law may treat them differently because of their 
immigration status. 

In addition to excluding the active participation of migrant sex workers, the 
record also excluded other kinds of written work that would illuminate their 
lived experiences. There was a stark absence of reports and other written 
work by NGOs and migrant sex workers from the record despite the fact that 
there are migrant sex worker organizations that actively provide information 
on the experiences of migrant sex workers online for example (see, e.g., 
SWAN Vancouver Society; Butterfly: Asian and Migrant Sex Workers 

                                                
8 Some examples include (a) Timea E Nagy, who at the Standing Comimittee on Justice and 
Human Rights on July 7, 2014 said, “There isn’t a difference between prostitution and human 
trafficking in our organization’s view”; (b) Brian McConaghy’s comments at the Standing 
Committee on Justice and Human Rights on July 10, 2014; and (c) Joy Smith at the Standing 
Committee on Justice and Human Rights, who on July 9, 2014 stated that legalization of 
prostitution leads to an explosion of human trafficking. 



Jamie Liew 

 
Studies in Social Justice, Volume 14, Issue 1, 90-116, 2020 
	

104 

Network). The record for Bedford and the material submitted to Parliament 
demonstrates a dearth of migrant sex worker voices and an absence of 
research or reports provided by civil society on the subject. The inclusion of 
some “experts” in the judicial and legislative processes raises questions of 
who experts are and what kind of expert work is deployed in legal reform. 
 
 
Inviting Immigrant and Migrant Sex Workers to Litigation and Law 
Reform 
 
As with the dichotomous debates about whether there is agency in sex work, 
and whether prostitution involves exploitation and trafficking, there is a 
debate about whether migrant or immigrant sex workers are victims of 
trafficking or if they can hold agency as sex workers. Such debate, however 
may discount the multiplicity of roles or identities migrant and immigration 
sex workers may have (see, e.g., Crenshaw, 1991; Harris, 1990; King & 
Willis, 1999). For example, legislation, policy and legal rhetoric 
simultaneously treat migrant and immigrant sex workers as both exploited 
victims and agents in control of their own destiny (an irregular migrant who 
chose to thwart immigration law and is subject to removal from Canada). 
Further, it is the precarious immigration status that needs to be understood in 
order to appreciate how such status can render persons both vulnerable and 
resilient, thereby affecting the decisions racialized sex workers make – 
decisions about managing and surviving the precarity of their situation to 
avoid harm and deportation. In helping to prevent categorization or how a 
“specific social identity becomes the salient basis” for normative perceptions, 
this paper proposes more work needs to be done to include voices from the 
margins (Hogg, Terry & White, 1995, p. 260).9 

Future legal reform involving sex work should turn to, “the actual 
experience, history, culture, and intellectual tradition” of migrant and 
immigrant sex workers themselves. Mary Bunch writes that the voices also 
have to be heard in a meaningful way: 

 
Full participation in a democratized public sphere depends on more than the right 
to speak; it depends on being heard. Even in civic discourses aimed at realizing 
the human rights of a population at risk, stigma and dehumanization can 
undermine the voices of marginalized groups…sex workers cannot presume that 
their knowledge will be granted the same credibility in discursive processes as 
people coming from more socially sanctioned speaking positions. Indeed, as we 

                                                
9 As Mari Matsuda wrote, “[t]he central problem facing critical legal scholars, and indeed all 
thoughtful legal scholars, is the search for a normative source,” and she advocates that “Looking 
to the bottom – adopting the perspective of those who have seen and felt the falsity of the liberal 
promise – can assist critical scholars in the task of fathoming the phenomenology of law and 
defining the elements of justice” (1978, p. 324).  



Migrant and Immigrant Sex Workers and Law Reform in Canada 

 
Studies in Social Justice, Volume 14, Issue 1, 90116, 2020 

105 

see in Bedford, sex workers are sometimes not even heard by the very allies who 
would seek to protect them from harm… (2014, p. 41)  

 
As Lesley Anne Jeffrey and Gayle MacDonald also find, “It is the silencing, 
of their critical consciousness that lies at the base of their greatest oppression. 
This silencing has denied sex workers full citizenship and full humanity” 
(Jeffrey & MacDonald, 2006, p. 1).  

Unlike other sex workers, however, migrant and immigrant sex workers 
did not have a chance to provide their voices to the reform project of Bedford 
and Bill C-36. Instead, others filled the void by invoking language such as 
trafficked, trafficking, exploitation, abuse, victims, and massage parlours. 
While some may argue that there were advocates participating that 
illuminated what migrant and immigrant sex workers may have provided 
themselves, Nicole Gonzalescautions against delegating such important work 
to people who sincerely believe they are doing the right thing. In her book, 
Crook County (Gonzales, 2016, pp. 72-73), she details how prosecutors 
justify their actions by stating the myth that they are doing the right thing by 
punishing extreme criminals when such a myth does not match the reality of 
“the trenches of justice” where prosecutors are “getting in the way of real 
cases” and “undermining the heart of what it is to be a prosecutor” as “their 
presence in the system literally obstructs ‘real justice’.” I am not suggesting 
that advocates of sex workers are not doing good work to help sex workers, 
but rather that importance should be placed on acquiring information directly 
from those affected by the laws subject to reform. 

In looking at the material before the court and parliament, it is unclear how 
the Criminal Code provisions dealing with sex work would impact migrant 
and immigrant sex workers. In particular, it is unclear what potential 
protections or harms may come from that intersection, and how this 
intersection may differ from the experiences of sex workers with more 
permanent status in Canada. There are two narratives that migrant and 
immigrant sex workers are subject to when discussing their experience with 
law. The first is that migrant and immigrant sex workers are subject to 
exploitation and abuse through the trafficking of their labour. The second is 
that they are subject to harms and exclusion through Canada’s immigration 
system. The following section turns to scholarly work to investigate the 
potential differences. 
 
 
A Trafficking Discussion 
 
Many of the references to migrant and immigrant sex workers in Bedford and 
the discussions at Parliament refer to the problem of international trafficking 
of women and children. The discussion, while scant, is revealing.  

First, as discussed above, the material I analysed acknowledges the 
problem with defining and understanding the scope of the problem of 



Jamie Liew 

 
Studies in Social Justice, Volume 14, Issue 1, 90-116, 2020 
	

106 

“trafficking.” For example, the Report of the Standing Committee on Justice 
and Human Rights and Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws titled, “The 
Challenge of Change: A Study of Canada’s Criminal Prostitution Laws” in 
exhibit F of the affidavit of Libby Davies states, “Although Canada does not 
yet have the information needed to assess the scope of this problem 
nationally, there is no doubt that trafficking in persons is at play in 
prostitution activities, and that trafficked persons are among the most 
vulnerable in prostitution” (2006). 

Second, the trafficking discussions in the Bedford case and before 
Parliament mirror discussions about sex work in general – about whether it is 
abusive, harmful itself, or whether sex workers have agency and whether it 
should be considered a form of labour. For example, during the cross 
examination of Dr. John Lowman in the Bedford case, he states, “We know 
that in certain circumstances, debt bondage occurs in trafficking situations 
where a woman might be imprisoned in an off-street location” (Bedford 
Record, 2013, Vol. 21, p. 6198). However, in an article that was an exhibit of 
the Affidavit of Dr. John Lowman, one finds, “Trafficking legislation does 
not distinguish between those who have been coerced into sex work and those 
who are essentially working in the sex industry as economic migrants” 
(Bedford Record, 2013, Vol. 20, p. 5696). Similarly, Deborah Brock under 
examination during the Bedford case, stated:  

 
I assert that we should use [the term migrant sex worker as opposed to trafficking] 
because the concept of migrant sex workers allows for one to then specify the 
conditions in which this form of migration takes place, whether it be through 
agency or lack of agency. So whereas the concept of trafficking already from the 
outset seems that this is involuntary, that women are moved across borders 
against their will, that they do not know what they are moving for, and this 
certainly does not describe all of the movement across borders within the shifting 
global economy for these women, and so I think it is much more appropriate to 
not already overlay your assumptions of your way of framing the phenomenon, 
this particular social phenomenon, with the concept that dates back to the 19th 
century, that is trafficking. (Bedford Record, 2013, Vol. 9, p. 2274)  

 
On the other hand, at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, 
the Asian Women Coalition Ending Prostitution stated, “We praise Bill C-36 
because it recognizes that human trafficking and prostitution are closely 
linked and related. Human trafficking is intrinsic to the Asian woman’s 
experience of prostitution, regardless of what country she comes from” 
(2014).  

This mirrors the debate in academic literature. For example, Kristina Day 
finds there is a link between trafficking and prostitution and writes that the 
Swedish model of prohibiting the purchase of sex has been effective in 
reducing the number of street prostitutes and the rate of trafficking (Day, 
2012, p. 149). Nandita Sharma, on the other hand, writes:  



Migrant and Immigrant Sex Workers and Law Reform in Canada 

 
Studies in Social Justice, Volume 14, Issue 1, 90116, 2020 

107 

 
…far from helping migrants…anti-trafficking and/or anti-smuggling campaigns 
exacerbate the conditions that cause harm to migrants. They do so because one of 
the key underlying motives of these campaigns is to restrict the mobility of 
migrants, particularly undocumented movements of people. Indeed, deeply 
embedded within the anti-trafficking and anti-smuggling discourse and practice 
are anti-immigrant sentiments expressed best in the idea that migrants are almost 
(if not) always better off at “home.”…Rather than calling for an end to trafficking 
or smuggling, taking the standpoint of migrants compels us to deal with the reality 
that such illicit movements are the only ones available to the majority of the 
world’s displaced people... (2003, p. 54) 10 

 
A nuanced and deep discussion of what exactly is trafficking, and the scope 

of the trafficking problem was missing in Bedford and the debates about Bill 
C-36 in Parliament. While some mention of it was made haphazardly by 
witnesses and litigants, and in some secondary literature attached to various 
witness affidavits, there was no genuine examination of how the criminal law 
should be informed by the issue of trafficking, and what impact this may have 
on migrant and immigrant sex workers.  

For migrant and immigrant sex workers, two questions may be asked of the 
Bedford case. First, why were migrant and immigrant sex workers not 
included as the group of litigants to launch the constitutional challenge on 
criminal laws relating to sex work, and second, why were the provisions 
dealing with trafficking not included in the challenge. One simple answer is 
that the issue of trafficking is beyond the scope of the focus of the legal 
action. In the situation of migrant or immigrant sex workers, the fear of 
losing immigration status and being deported requires necessary invisibility 
in order to continue to work and there are specific reasons why some people 
may not want to be included in a legal challenge or testify before Parliament 
(Canadian Council for Refugees, 2013; Lam, 2018, April; Lam, 2018, May; 
MacIntosh, 2006). 

                                                
10 Dina Francesca Haynes (2009, pp. 50, 52, 69) said,  

The line between human trafficking and other types of labor exploitation is often so fine that 
it took many legal experts many years to pin down exactly what legally differentiates 
trafficking from other types of exploitative relationships… governments fail to acknowledge 
that all trafficking is a byproduct of labor and migration. Victims of human trafficking are 
people who determined to improved their lives but had that desire exploited. Only the very 
rare few have been literally snatched or kidnapped by traffickers. Migrants suffer more 
easily and endure more severe forms of exploitation when their immigration status rests in 
the hands of their employers, regardless of whether the possibility of deportation is real or 
only feared. The uncertainty about status and deportation works to the advantage of users 
and exploiters. The more the user has the potential to wield personal control over the 
worker, and the less access the worker has to a support system, the higher the potential for 
and degree of exploitation. It is clear that employers understand that migrant and 
undocumented employees are cheaper, easier to control, and more exploitable, specifically 
due to their lack of immigrant status. Expanding opportunities to immigrate and obtain 
status, ones that do not tie victims’ statuses to their “employers,” could reduce the 
propensity of potential users to exploit migrants for domestic or sex work. 



Jamie Liew 

 
Studies in Social Justice, Volume 14, Issue 1, 90-116, 2020 
	

108 

As acknowledged by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2012 in Canada v 
Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society, there are 
several reasons why persons may not want to bring a legal challenge forward: 

 
[71]…However, being a witness and a party are two very different things. In this 
case, the record shows that there were no sex workers in the Downtown Eastside 
neighbourhood of Vancouver willing to bring a comprehensive challenge forward. 
They feared loss of privacy and safety and increased violence by clients. Also, 
their spouses, friends, family members and/or members of their community may 
not know that they are or were involved in sex work or that they are or were drug 
users. They have children that they fear will be removed by child protection 
authorities. Finally, bringing such challenge, they fear, may limit their current or 
future education or employment opportunities (Affidavit of Jill Chettiar, 
September 26, 2008, at paras. 16-18 (A.R., vol. IV, at pp. 184-85)). As I see it, the 
willingness of many of these same persons to swear affidavits or to appear to 
testify does not undercut their evidence to the effect that they would not be 
willing or able to bring a challenge of this nature in their own names. There are 
also the practical aspects of running a major constitutional law suit. Counsel 
needs to be able to communicate with his or her clients and the clients must be 
able to provide timely and appropriate instructions. Many difficulties might arise 
in the context of individual challenges given the evidence about the circumstances 
of many of the individuals most directly affected by the challenged provisions. 

 
In responding to Bedford, Parliament missed an opportunity to examine 
reform in a way that includes an examination of how criminal laws regarding 
sex work may be experienced differently by migrant and immigrant sex 
workers. For example, Katrin Roots writes that there is “an unmistakable 
parallel” between provisions in the Criminal Code prohibiting human 
trafficking and procurement for the purpose of sexual exploitation (2013, p. 
40). In missing this “unmistakable parallel,” the legal reform that took place 
rendered migrant and immigrant sex workers invisible.  

Further, discussions in court and at the legislature did not explore the 
myriad of intersections where immigration and criminal law meet. One 
example is how criminal charges and convictions can result in the finding of 
inadmissible for immigration, leading to the eventual removal of a person 
from Canada. The way in which immigration law may be implicated requires 
different discussions than how to deal with the issue of trafficking. While it is 
beyond the scope of this article to examine all of the potential issues that  
criminal law raise for migrant and immigrant sex workers, the foregoing 
suggests that changes to the law regarding sex work did not contemplate 
these matters. The next section briefly provides an overview of what was 
missed in these legal debates. 
 
 
 
 



Migrant and Immigrant Sex Workers and Law Reform in Canada 

 
Studies in Social Justice, Volume 14, Issue 1, 90116, 2020 

109 

What the Legal Reform Project was Missing 
 
How specifically the changes in the Criminal Code affect migrant sex 
workers is beyond the scope of this paper. This section of the article, 
however, provides a glimpse of the differential impacts the changes in law 
have on migrant sex workers and a sense of what kinds of evidence were 
missing in the legal reform processes that took place in Bedford and 
Parliament.  

A glaring omission from the material, discussions and transcripts in both 
the courts and legislatures is that migrant and immigrant sex workers are 
subject to a legal regime that other citizen sex workers may not be: 
immigration law. When it comes to migrant and immigrant sex workers, 
power imbalances, exploitation, abuse and fear are intertwined and 
exacerbated by the precarious immigration status some have (Daway, 2010). 
Like many migrant workers, “Paid work is a primary axis of life for 
precarious migrants, and a venue through which they become socially and 
economically connected to Canada” and “non-permanent status influences 
[migrant workers’] decisions in a way that results not only in differential 
access to legal protections, but also in deskilling, job insecurity and decreased 
labour mobility” (Marsden, 2014, p. 33).  

It is not just the lack or temporariness of status that is important, but the 
social identity and the legal consequences attached to that lack of status. 
Indeed, Sarah Marsden explains that, “Framing undocumented migrants as 
‘illegal’” allows the government to allocate rights and entitlements differently 
between persons carrying different kinds of immigration status (Marsden, 
2012, p. 209). Migrant and immigrant sex workers are no strangers to being 
treated as “illegal” not just because of the work they engage in but also 
because of their status (CBC News, 2015, May 11; McIntyre, 2015, May 13; 
Cheung, 2007). Fay Faraday (2012) writes, migrant workers’ insecurity is “an 
entirely foreseeable outcome” of choices made by legislators and 
governments. 

At a minimum, legal reform should investigate, interrogate and critique 
proposed changes to law by looking at the intersection many migrant and 
immigrant sex workers find themselves in: where criminal law and 
immigration law meet and where racialized persons or persons with 
precarious status intersect with criminal law. Discussions during Bedford and 
in Parliament did not delve deeply into how Criminal Code provisions aimed 
at preventing, deterring and punishing for trafficking of persons would work 
with the amendments to the Criminal Code on sex work.11 There was also no 
discussion on how the amendments work with various provisions in the 

                                                
11 There was a lack of discussion relating to the following Criminal Code provisions: s. 279.01 
(trafficking of persons); s. 297.011 (trafficking of a person under the age of eighteen years); s. 
279.02 (receiving a financial or other material benefit for the purpose of committing or 
facilitating trafficking in persons); s. 279.03 (withholding or destroying a person’s identity 
documents); s. 279.04 (definition of exploitation for trafficking offences). 



Jamie Liew 

 
Studies in Social Justice, Volume 14, Issue 1, 90-116, 2020 
	

110 

Immigration and Refugee Protection Act. For example, how do the 
amendments interact with: (a) provisions that prohibit knowingly organizing 
the coming into Canada of one or more persons by means of abduction, fraud, 
deception, or use or threat of force or coercion; (b) section 196.1(a) which 
states that a “foreign national must not enter into an employment agreement, 
or extend the term of an employment agreement, with an employer who, on a 
regular basis, offers striptease, erotic dance, escort services or erotic 
massages?”; (c) provisions that point to criminal charges and convictions to 
make findings that a person is inadmissible and therefore removable from 
Canada; (d) provisions that render children of migrant or immigrant sex 
workers  subject to the same criminal or immigration legal consequences? 
There is existing literature that looks at these intersections (see, e.g., 
Bellissimo, 2011; Butterfly, n.d.; Canadian Council for Refugees, n.d.; 
Citizenship Canada 2016.; Gallagher & Pearson, 2010; Haynes, 2009; Lam, 
2018, April; Lam, 2018, May; Legal Aid Ontario, n.d.; MacIntosh, 2006; 
Oxman-Martinez & Hanley, 2001; Sharma, 2003; SWAN, 2015; Thobani, 
2001; UNHCR, 2001). When legal reform is undertaken a more concerted 
effort should be made to provide an intersectional approach and analysis of 
law’s impact with persons who are racialized and have precarious 
immigration status. 

 
 

Conclusion: Building Inclusionary Evidence 
  
This paper points out the invisibility of migrant and immigrant sex workers in 
the most recent legal reform project in Canada involving sex workers.  

Graham Hudson and Emily van der Meulen argue that in looking at the 
formative questions before Bedford, the Supreme Court of Canada “rest[s] on 
the empirical claim that substantive law as well as processes of law-
enforcement contribute to increased risk of violence and exploitation, as well 
as on the principle that any attempt to regulate sex work must consist with the 
maxim: “do not harm” (2013, p. 117). Further, Hudson and van der Meulen 
find that Bedford has enhanced the quality of the debates surrounding sex 
work by making them more inclusive of the perspectives of sex workers 
(2013, p. 115). If this is the case, it is important to consider whether the 
increased risk of violence and exploitation manifests in different ways for 
migrant and immigrant sex workers, and whether it can contribute to the 
future framing of criminal, immigration and other Canadian laws. 

The discourse analysis conducted shows that not all perspectives of sex 
workers were included in the record for the litigation in Bedford and 
legislative debates leading to the amendments to the Criminal Code. The 
findings pose questions about what is missing from the legal considerations 
in the courts and in parliament, and how the law regarding sex work 
potentially poses harms not contemplated that violate the Charter of Rights 



Migrant and Immigrant Sex Workers and Law Reform in Canada 

 
Studies in Social Justice, Volume 14, Issue 1, 90116, 2020 

111 

and Freedoms. This study provides fruit for discussion about including the 
differential experiences of sex workers that are racialized and have immigrant 
or precarious immigration status. Further, the paper contributes to wider 
discussions in a variety of contexts about whether and how legal reform is 
considering all those in the margins.  

Knowing that the law may be challenged again in the future, what can be 
done to ensure migrant and immigrant sex worker voices are included? Is 
there a way to give migrant and immigrant sex workers recognition of their 
multiple identities as members of our communities (whether as citizens or 
non-citizens), workers, victims, mothers and sisters? This paper encourages 
future research to think about participant inclusive or subject-to-subject 
research and legal advocacy. The discussion here points out potential 
differential experiences that may merit inclusion.  
 
 
Acknowledgements 
 
The author wants to acknowledge the silent, invisible and unknown but long 
deported. The author is grateful for all of the research assistance she received 
from Angela He, Tae-Min (Peter) Choi, Aditya Rao, Seema Shafei as well as 
support from the Law Foundation of Ontario. Special thank you to Olivia Lee 
for her patient research assistance. Thank you to Elizabeth Sheehy for 
bringing her critical eye to this piece and in giving her honest comments. 
Many thanks to Frédérique Chabot, Elene Lam and Laila Demirdache for 
conversations over many years on this issue. Our talks inspired me to take 
this project on. I also want to thank the reviewers who gave very helpful 
advice. Finally thank you to Blair Rutherford, Daiva Stasiulis and Zaheera 
Jinnah for organizing this special issue and for your helpful advice on 
revisions. 
 
 
References 
 
Allison, G. (2014, July 10) Canada, 41st Parliament, 2nd sess. Meeting no. 43, House of 

Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Evidence. Retrieved from 
the Parliament of Canada website: https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/41-
2/JUST/meeting-43/evidence 

Barry, K. (1996). The prostitution of sexuality. New York: NYU Press. 
Basok, T., & Carasco, E. (2010). Advancing the rights of non-citizens in Canada: A human rights 

approach to migrant rights. Human Rights Quarterly, 32(2), 342-366.  
Batters, D., & Jaffer, M. (2014, October 21). 41st Parliament, 2nd sess., Senate of Canada. 

Debates of the Senate, 149 (87). Retrieved from the Parliament of Canada website: 
https://sencanada.ca/en/content/sen/chamber/412/debates/087db_2014-10-21-e 

Beazley, N. (2014, July 7). Canada, 41st Parliament, 2nd sess., meeting no. 34. House of 
Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Evidence. Retrieved from 
the Parliament of Canada website: https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/41-
2/JUST/meeting-34/evidence 



Jamie Liew 

 
Studies in Social Justice, Volume 14, Issue 1, 90-116, 2020 
	

112 

Belknap, J. (2014). The invisible woman: Gender, crime and justice (4th edition). Stamford, CT: 
Cengage Learning. 

Bellissimo, M. (2011). Preventing trafficking, abuse and exploitation of vulnerable immigrants: 
Is it possible? Immigration Law Reporter, 93, 30-35.  

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. (2015). 41st Parliament, 2nd session. [Bill C-36]. 

Boivin, F. (2014, July 15) 41st Parliament, 2nd sess. Meeting no. 44.House of Commons 
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Retrieved from the Parliament of 
Canada website: https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/41-2/JUST/meeting-
44/evidence 

Brane, M., & Wang, L. (2013). Women: Rhe invisible detainees. Forced Migration Review 44, 
37-39. 

Brock, D., Gillies, K., Oliver, C., & Sutdhibhasilp, M. (2000). Migrant sex work: A roundtable. 
Canadian Woman Studies, 20(2), 84-91.  

Bruckert, C., & Hannem, S. (2013). Rethinking the prostitution debates: Transcending structural 
stigma in systemic responses to sex work. Canadian Journal of Law and Society / Revue 
Canadienne Droit Et Société, 28(1), 43-63.  

Bunch, M. (2014). Communicating for the purposes of human rights: Sex work and discursive 
justice in Canada. Canadian Journal of Human Rights 3(1), 39-74. 

Bullock, K., & Jafri, G. J. (2000). Media (mis)representations: Muslim women in the Canadian 
nation. Canadian Women Studies, 20(2), 35-40.  

Bungay, V., Halpin, M., Atchison, C., & Johnston, C. (2011). Structure and agency: Reflections 
from an exploratory study of Vancouver indoor sex workers. Culture, Health & 
Sexuality, 13(1), 15-29. 

Butterfly. (n.d.). Stop the harm from anti-trafficking policies and campaigns: Support sex 
workers’ rights, justice, and dignity. Retrieved from https://www.butterflysw.org/legal-
information-for-services-prov 

Canada (Attorney General) v Bedford, 72 Supreme Court of Canada. (2013). Retrieved from the 
Supreme Court of Canada Judgements website: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-
csc/en/item/13389/index.do 

Canada (Attorney General) v Bedford, 72 Supreme Court of Canada. (2013). Record. [Bedford 
Record]. 

The Canadian Alliance for Sex Work Law Reform: Member Groups. (2019, Oct. 28). Retrieved 
from https://sexworklawreform.com/about-us/member-groups 

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: Part I of the Constitution Act. (1982).  
Canadian Council for Refugees. (n.d.). Access to protection for trafficked non-citizens. Retrieved 

from https://ccrweb.ca/en/protection-trafficked-persons 
Canadian Council for Refugees. (2013, June). Temporary resident permits: Limits to protection 

for trafficked persons. [CCR TRP Report]. Retrieved from 
https://ccrweb.ca/en/trafficking/temporary-resident-permit-report  

CBC News. (2015, May 11). Sex workers further victimized by deportations, groups say. CBC. 
Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/sex-workers-further-victimized-
by-deportations-groups-say-1.3069626  

Cheung, C. (2007). Protecting sex trafficking victims: Establishing the persecution element. 
Asian American Law Journal, 14(31), 31-55.  

Chu, S. K. H., & Glass, R. (2013). Sex work law reform in Canada: Considering problems with 
the Nordic model. Alberta Law Review 51(1), 101-124.  

Citizenship Canada. (2016, May 5). Temporary resident permits (TRPs): Considerations specific 
to victims of human trafficking. Government of Canada. Retrieved from 
https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/publications-
manuals/operational-bulletins-manuals/temporary-residents/permits/considerations-
specific-victims-human-trafficking.html  

Covington, S. S. (1998). Women in prison: Approaches in the treatment of our most invisible 
population. Women in Therapy Journal, 21(1), 141-155.  



Migrant and Immigrant Sex Workers and Law Reform in Canada 

 
Studies in Social Justice, Volume 14, Issue 1, 90116, 2020 

113 

Craig, E. (2011). Sex work by law: Bedford’s impact on municipal approaches to regulating the 
sex trade. Review of Constitutional Studies 16(1), 205-225.  

Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence 
against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241-1299.  

Criminal Code of Canada, Revised Statutes of Canada (1985, c. C-46). Retrieved from the 
Justice Laws website: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/index.html 

Dauvergne, C. (2013). How the Charter has failed non-citizens in Canada: Reviewing thirty 
years of Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence. McGill Law Journal, 53(8). Retrieved 
from https://commons.allard.ubc.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1091&context=fac_pubs 

Daway, P. (2010). Migrant workers’ rights and status under international law: The Asian 
experience. Journal of East Asia & International Law, 3(2), 263-292.  

Day, K. (2012). Addressing the sex trafficking crisis: How prostitution laws can help. Creighton 
International & Comparative Law Journal, 2(2), 149-172.  

Dechert, B. & Phillips, R. (2014, July 10). Canada, 41st Parliament, 2nd sess., meeting no. 42. 
House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Retrieved from the 
Parliament of Canada website: https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/41-
2/JUST/meeting-42/evidence  

Demleitner, N. (2001). The law at a crossroads: The construction of migrant women trafficked 
into prostitution. In D. Kyle & R. Koslowski (Eds.), Global human smuggling: 
Comparative perspectives (pp. 257-293). Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press. 

Department of Justice. (2014). Technical Paper: Bill C-36, Protection of Communities and 
Exploited Persons Act. Retrieved from the Department of Justice website: 
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/protect/p1.html 

Dobrowolsky, A. (2008). Interrogating ‘invisibilization and instrumentalization’: Women and 
current citizenship trends in Canada. Citizenship Studies 12(5), 465-479.   

Dworkin, A. (1993). Prostitution and male supremacy. Michigan Journal of Gender & Law, 1(1), 
1-12.  

Easter, W., Dechert, B., Goguen, R., & Galipeau, R. (2014, Sept. 26). Protection of Communities 
and Exploited Persons Act. Canada. 41st Parliament, 2nd sess. House of Commons. Edited 
Hansard 147(117). Retrieved from the Parliament of Canada website: 
https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/41-2/house/sitting-117/hansard#Int-
8450654 

Faraday, F. (2012). Made in Canada summary report: How the law constructs a migrant 
workers’ insecurity. Metcalf Foundation. Retrieved from 
https://metcalffoundation.com/publication/made-in-canada-how-the-law-constructs-
migrant-workers-insecurity/  

Farley, M. (2006). Prostitution, trafficking, and cultural amnesia: What we must not know in 
order to keep the business of sexual exploitation running smoothly. Yale Journal of Law & 
Feminism, 18(1), 109-144.  

Farley, M., Cotton, A., Lynne, J., Zumbeck, S., Spiwak, F., Reyes, M., & Sezgin, U. (2004). 
Prostitution and trafficking in nine countries: Update on violence and posttraumatic stress 
disorder. Journal of Trauma Practice, 2(3/4), 33-74.  

Fitzpatrick, J., & Kelly, K. (1998). Gendered aspects of migration: Law and the female migrant. 
Hastings International & Comparative Law Review, 22(1), 47-112.  

Gallagher, A., & Pearson, E. (2010). The high cost of freedom: A legal policy analysis of shelter 
detention for victims of trafficking. Human Rights Quarterly, 32, 73-114.  

Gilchrist, K. (2010). ‘Newsworthy’ victims?: Exploring differences in Canadian local press 
coverage of missing/murdered Aboriginal and White women. Feminist Media Studies, 
10(4), 373-390.  

Gonzales, N. (2016). Crook county: Racism and injustice in America’s largest criminal court 
(pp. 72-73). Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.  

Ham, J. (2015). Sex work, immigration and social difference [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. 
Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. 

Harris, A. (1990). Race and essentialism in feminist legal theory. Stanford Law Review, 43(3), 
581-616.  



Jamie Liew 

 
Studies in Social Justice, Volume 14, Issue 1, 90-116, 2020 
	

114 

Haynes, D. F. (2009). Exploitation nation: The thin and grey legal lines between trafficked 
persons and abused migrant laborers. Immigration & Nationality Law Review, 30, 3-74.  

Hennebry, J. (2012) Permanently temporary? Agriculture migrant workers and their integration 
in Canada. IRPP Study 26. 

Hogg, M., Terry, D., & White, K. (1995). A tale of two theories: A critical comparison of 
identity theory with social identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58(4), 255-269.  

Hudson, G., & Meulen, E. (2013). Sex work, law and violence: Bedford v Canada and the human 
rights of sex workers. Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 31(1), 115-145.  

Immigration & Refugee Protection Act, Statutes of Canada. (2001, c. 27).  
Immigration & Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227, s 196.1(a). 
Jaffer, S. M. (2014, Oct. 21). 41st Parliament, 2nd sess., Senate of Canada. Debates of the Senate, 

149(87). Retrieved from the Parliament of Canada website: 
https://sencanada.ca/en/content/sen/chamber/412/debates/087db_2014-10-21-e 

Jay, S. (2014, Sept. 9). 41st Parliament, 2nd sess., Senate Standing Committee on Legal and 
Constitutional Affairs. Retrieved from the Parliament of Canada website: 
https://sencanada.ca/en/Content/SEN/Committee/412/lcjc/15ev-51558-e 

Jeffrey, L. A. (2005). Canada and migrant sex‐work: Challenging the ‘foreign’ in foreign policy. 
Canadian Foreign Policy Journal, 12(1), 33-48.  

Jeffrey, L. A., & MacDonald. G. (2006). Sex workers in the Maritimes talk back. Vancouver, 
BC: UBC Press.  

Jiwani, Y., & Young, M. L. (2006). Missing and murdered women: Reproducing marginality in 
news discourse. Canadian Journal of Communication, 31, 895-917.  

Kempadoo, K., & Doezema, J. (1998). Global sex workers: Rights, resistance and redefinition. 
New York: Routledge. 

King, A., & Willis, C. (1999). From theory to praxis: Black women, gangs, and critical race 
feminism. Berkeley La Raza Law Journal, 11(1), 1-15.  

Kronick, R., & Rousseau, C. (2015). Rights, compassion and invisible children: A critical 
discourse analysis of the parliamentary debates on the mandatory detention of migrant 
children in Canada. Journal of Refugee Studies 28(4), 544-569. 

Krusi, A., Pacey, K., Bird, L., Taylor, C., Chettiar, J., & Shannon, K. (2014). Criminalisation of 
clients: Reproducing vulnerabilities for violence and poor health among street-based sex 
workers in Canada – a qualitative study. BMJ Open, 4(e005191). doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-
2014-005191. 

Laliberté, E. (2014, Jul. 7). Canada, 41st Parliament, 2nd sess. Meeting no. 33. House of 
Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Evidence. Retrieved from 
the Parliament of Canada website: https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/41-
2/JUST/meeting-33/evidence. 

Lam, E. (2018, Apr.). Behind the rescue: How anti-trafficking investigations and policies harm 
migrant sex workers. Butterfly. Retrieved from https://www.butterflysw.org/publication 

Lam, E. (2018, May). Survey on Toronto holistic practitioners’ experiences with bylaw 
enforcement and police. Butterfly. Retrieved from https://www.butterflysw.org/publication 

Lawrence, S. (2015). Expert-tease: Advocacy, ideology and experience in Bedford and Bill C-36. 
Canadian Journal of Law & Society / Revue Canadienne Droit Et Société, 30(1), 5-7.  

Legal Aid Ontario. (n.d.). Immigration consequences of criminal dispositions and sentencing. 
Butterfly. Retrieved from https://www.butterflysw.org/legal-information-for-services-prov  

MacIntosh, C. (2006). Assessing human trafficking in Canada: Flawed strategies and the rhetoric 
of human rights. Intercultural Human Rights Law Review, 24(1), 407-435.  

MacKinnon, C. A. (2011). Trafficking, prostitution, and inequality. Harvard Civil Rights-Civil 
Liberties Law Review, 46(2), 271-309.  

Macklin, A. (2003). Dancing across borders: 'Exotic dancers,' trafficking, and Canadian 
immigration policy. The International Migration Review, 37(2), 464-500.  

Marsden, S. (2012). The new precariousness: Temporary migrants and the law in Canada. 
Canadian Journal of Law & Society, 27(2), 209-229.  

Marsden, S. (2014). ‘Silence means yes here in Canada’: Precarious migrants, work and the law. 
Canadian Labour & Employment Law Journal, 18(1), 1-38.  



Migrant and Immigrant Sex Workers and Law Reform in Canada 

 
Studies in Social Justice, Volume 14, Issue 1, 90116, 2020 

115 

Matsuda, M. (1978). Looking to the bottom: Critical legal studies and reparations. Harvard Civil 
Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 22(2), 323-400.  

McIntyre, C. (2015, May 13). Migrant sex workers caught up in Ottawa sting facing deportation, 
further exploitation: Activists. National Post. Retrieved from 
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/migrant-sex-workers-caught-up-in-ottawa-sting-
facing-deportation-further-exploitation-activists 

McConaghy, B. (2014, July 10) Canada, 41st Parliament, 2nd Sess. Meeting no. 43, House of 
Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Evidence. Retrieved from 
the Parliament of Canada website: https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/41-
2/JUST/meeting-43/evidence 

Nagy, T. (2014, July 7) Canada, 41st Parliament, 2nd Sess. Meeting no. 33, House of Commons 
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Evidence. Retrieved from the 
Parliament of Canada website: https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/41-
2/JUST/meeting-33/evidence  

NSWP: Global Network of Sex Work Projects. (2016, Oct. 2). Who we are. Retrieved from 
https://www.nswp.org/who-we-are 

Outshoorn, J. (2005). The political debates on prostitution and trafficking of women. Social 
Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 12(1), 141- 155.   

Oxman-Martinez, J., Martinez, A., & Hanley, J. (2001). Human trafficking: Canadian 
government policy and practice. Refuge: Canada’s Journal on Refugees, 19(4), 14-23.  

PIVOT Legal. (n.d.). Protecting the health, safety, and human rights of sex workers. Retrieved 
from http://www.pivotlegal.org/sex_workers_rights 

Randall, M. (2010). Sexual assault law, credibility, and ‘ideal victims’: Consent, resistance and 
victim blaming. Canadian Journal of Women & the Law, 22(2), 397-433.   

Redsky, D. ( 2014, July 8). 41st Parliament, 2nd sess. Meeting no. 37. House of Commons 
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Retrieved from the Parliament of 
Canada website: https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/41-2/JUST/meeting-
37/evidence 

Roots, K. (2013). Trafficking or pimping? An analysis of Canada’s human trafficking legislation 
and its implications. Canadian Journal of Law & Society, 28(1), 21-41.  

Sampson, L. (2014). “The obscenities of this country”: Canada v. Bedford and the reform of 
Canadian prostitution laws. Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy 22(1), 137-172. 

Satterthwaite, M. (2005). Crossing borders, claiming rights: Using human rights law to empower 
women migrant workers. Yale Human Rights & Development Journal 8(1). Retrieved from 
https://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/yhrdlj/vol8/iss1/1 

Sayers, N. (2014, Jul. 7). Canada, 41st Parliament, 2nd sess., meeting no. 33. House of Commons 
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Evidence. Retrieved from the 
Parliament of Canada website: https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/41-
2/JUST/meeting-33/evidence 

Scott, V. (2014, Sept. 9). 41st Parliament, 2nd sess., Senate Standing Committee on Legal and 
Constitutional Affairs. Retrieved from the Parliament of Canada website: 
https://sencanada.ca/en/Content/SEN/Committee/412/lcjc/15ev-51558-e 

Sharma, N. (2000). Race, class, gender and the making of difference: The social organization of 
‘migrant workers’ in Canada. Atlantis 24(2), 5-15. 

Sharma, N. (2002). Immigrant and migrant labour movements: Racism and the expansion of 
globalization. Canadian Womens’ Studies 21(4), 18-25. 

Sharma, N. (2003). Travel agency: A critique of anti-trafficking campaigns. Refuge: Canada’s 
Journal on Refugees, 21(3), 53-65.  

Showden, C., & Majic, S. (2014). Negotiating sex work: Unintended consequences of policy and 
activism. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. 

Sintos Coloma, R., McElhinney, B., Tungohan, E., Catungal J. P. C., Davidson, L. M. (Ed.), 
(2012). Filipinos in Canada: Disturbing invisibility.Toronto: University of Toronto Press. 

Smith, J. (2014, July 9) Canada, 41st Parliament, 2nd Sess. Meeting no. 40, House of Commons 
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Evidence. Retrieved from the 
Parliament of Canada website: https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/41-
2/JUST/meeting-40/evidence  



Jamie Liew 

 
Studies in Social Justice, Volume 14, Issue 1, 90-116, 2020 
	

116 

Stasiulis D., & Bakan, A. (2003). Negotiating citizenship: Migrant women in Canada and the 
global system. New York: Palgrave MacMillan. 

Sullivan, B. (2003). Trafficking in women. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 5(1), 67-
91.  

SWAN Vancouver Society. (2015). Im/migrant sex works, myths and misconceptions: Realities 
of the anti-trafficked. Butterfly. Retrieved from https://www.butterflysw.org/legal-
information-for-services-prov  

Taylor, K. (1993). Invisible woman: Reflections on the Clarence Thomas confirmation 
hearing. Stanford Law Review, 45(2), 443-452.  

Thobani, S. (2001). Benevolent state, law-breaking smugglers, and deportable and expendable 
women: An analysis of the Canadian state’s strategy to address trafficking in women. 
Refuge: Canada’s Journal on Refugees, 19(4), 24-33. 

UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees). (2001, March 5). Comments on Bill 
C-1 “An Act respecting immigration to Canada and the granting of refugee protection to 
persons who are displaced, persecuted or in danger”. Submission to the House of 
Commons Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. 

Worrall, A. (1990). Offending women: Female lawbreakers and the criminal justice system. 
London: Routledge.