I have two different points. The Pivot challenge when it came to section 15 was talking about the way the protective service potential of the police is not extended to women in sex work so they do not get equal treatment under the charter.
I think a different kind of section 15 argument is likely to arise in the proposed legislation because you have a situation where you're basically saying one party in a transaction, which in a legal sense is a consenting transaction, has no responsibility for it, and the other party is given full responsibility for it.
So as far as I can see, given that many women involved in prostitution do not agree with the prohibitionists' analysis of choice—yes, choice is constrained, but that's true for most manual and service workers, agricultural workers, seasonal workers, and on and on—what you're going to see is the argument that if the police set up bogus escort services in order to get buyers to contact them and make an offer to purchase a service, remembering that the advertising of that service if it's a person doing it for themselves will be exempt from the law prohibiting advertising, you essentially have a form of entrapment because you potentially have a person who has never bought sexual services before.
As I say, supply and demand interact. When we study clients and ask them reasons for purchasing sex, 41% talked about the visibility and availability. If you have an institutionalized system that does nothing about availability, it seems to me you have institutionalized entrapment.