I can really speak to you only about the knowledge that we have right now. Safety issues were front and centre when Parliament was considering Bill C-36.
Parliament, back then, acknowledged that some people choose to engage in sex work and that that's likely to continue to be the case, even in a regime that's designed to end the sex trade. The record indicates that it's for this reason that the legislation doesn't prevent individuals from implementing certain safety measures, in particular those identified by the Supreme Court of Canada in its Bedford decision.
In particular, the parliamentary record indicates that the legislative exceptions to the material benefit offence mean that sellers of their own sexual services may interact with others on a personal or commercial basis in the same way as anyone else, including if they want to rent particular locations or hire persons to provide services for fair market value. The bill's immunity provision means that they will not be held criminally liable for providing sexual services independently and co-operatively, including by pooling resources to pay for services that are excepted by the material benefit offence.
Acknowledging that these are live issues before the court, I would close my remarks there.