It certainly does not.
In screening my clients.... I'm very lucky. After 36 years, I have a large, regular clientele base. For the most part, I know my clients. That's the thing. If you can't screen clients and you're having a hard time finding clients, every client you see is a new person and you don't know what to expect from that client. Screening is almost impossible under this legal regime. They don't want to give their full names. They don't want to risk their families, jobs or lives in a screening process, because they're afraid of being captured by this law.
For the workers on the street, it means you have to jump in the car and drive away before you can negotiate the terms of your employment. We used to be able to lean into the window of the car and see if they have a rape kit and if they're sober. Now, you're already in the car and you're left to negotiate your way out.
In terms of having clients come into my home, I want to know who they are before they come into my home. My home is the safest place—or massage parlours when I worked there—because it's on my turf. Going to a hotel or a client's home remains extremely risky, as it was before the Bedford decision. I gave evidence in that case. I've been in this battle for 20 years this year, which is really sad in a way.
The criminalization of sex buyers is not helping the situation at all. They are a critical ally in the fight against exploitation. The Vancouver police will tell you that, during their operation that netted 47 men who were attempting to buy from a youth, they had phone calls from clients saying, “There's a youth advertising sexual services on LeoList”. They were trying to refer that youth, who was actually a police officer, to the counter exploitation unit. The clients are not these boogeymen.