Independent MP Brent Rathgeber has put pen to paper — or, more accurately, typed away at a keyboard — to offer some thoughts on last month’s Supreme Court Terri Bedford case ruling that struck down Canada’s prostitution laws as unconstitutional.

In December, the Supreme Court found that the three laws in Canada that relate to prostitution — making it illegal to operate a bawdy house, to communicate for the purposes of selling sex and living off the avails of prostitution — served to make things more dangerous for sex workers and violated the Section 7 of the Constitution that protects the security of the person.

Rathgeber, a trained lawyer and self-described libertarian, wrote in his blog Friday that, in his view, the only workable solution — although imperfect — would be to regulate the industry.

The MP’s stance counters that of many of his former Conservative party colleagues. Rathgeber notes the Nordic model, which would make purchasing sex a punishable offence to target johns and is touted by the likes of Tory MP Joy Smith, is untenable and doesn’t make much sense.

“This approach is opposed by Ms. Bedford, who believes sanctions against purchasers will still force the industry underground, thereby not doing anything to promote sex worker safety,” he wrote.

Rathgeber continued, “The only practicable solution is regulation of the industry. If consenting participants were licensed, health and safety concerns could be addressed.”

“Trafficked or other involuntary participants would not be granted licences. Hopefully a legal market would reduce demand for an illegal one.”

In its ruling, the Supreme Court gave Parliament one year to determine what prostitution-related laws, if any, should be put in place.

But if MPs and Senators choose not to discuss the issue or pass legislation within that time frame – and if they choose not to ask the court for an extension on the one-year term -— the current laws around sex work will cease to exist and the industry will be, as some have called it, an unregulated free for all.

“This is the approach Canada takes with respect to other morally challenging products such as tobacco, alcohol, and even exotic dancing,” Rathgeber said of regulation. “The approach is imperfect in all instances, but is likely preferable to an attempt to prohibit prostitution or unregulated anarchy.”

It’s unclear what sort of study will take place — or where — to deal with the Supreme Court’s challenge to Parliament. Justice Minister Peter MacKay’s office hasn’t said whether the issue would be punted to either a House or Senate committee, although some Senators have already cast some doubts that the Senate would be a viable venue.

Rathgeber pointed out that there’s no shortage of evidence that supports the court’s position — that the laws in place make things unsafe for sex workers.

“Serial killer Robert Picton and Edmonton’s Project KARE’s Task Force on nearly a dozen murdered or missing women from “at risk” lifestyles are only a couple of the examples of how streetwalking is a dangerous, sometimes lethal, vocation,” he wrote.

Prostitution makes many uncomfortable and raises a number or moral questions that could put Parliamentarians in a bind in trying to find solutions — and Rathgeber recognizes this.

“But as a legislator I must examine a bigger picture than my own moral compass,” he wrote.

“Parliament must draft a law that conforms with the Supreme Court’s direction. I must also consult extensively with my constituents, many of whom I am certain will be equally uncomfortable.”