There's a significant amount of difference. The first difference is the purpose of the legislation. The existing section 213 was interpreted by the Supreme Court as being essentially a nuisance offence. Basically, it was to control nuisance on the street.
Bill C-36's reformulation of section 213's objective is to protect children from the harms of prostitution. It is to essentially prohibit soliciting in front of children because of the harms that may befall children, and also drawing them in.
It is not geared to controlling the nuisance on the street. It is to protect children. It's a different legislative objective, so there's a huge difference.
The other difference, of course, is that it's a lot more narrow in scope. It only applies to places—not any place—where there's a reasonable expectation that children would be present, which means that in the case of any place other than that, a person would be able to solicit legally.