Article content continued

Supporters of the bill agree with that narrative, arguing that those in the sex trade are forced into it by systematic issues of poverty, racism and sexism and deserve protection from the law.

And they agree that going after those who are the instigators of the sex trade is a way to better protect those women.

Bedford, however, is not among them — and she made that abundantly clear Wednesday.

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

tap here to see other videos from our team. Try refreshing your browser, or

When asked by Liberal Sen. Serge Joyal how the new law might affect her work, Bedford appeared to opt for a show of force.

She cracked her whip on the desk and said the new law would ensure she was back before government in 10 years, arguing the issue anew.

It’s a point of view echoed by other opponents of the bill, who say that as written, C-36 does little other than create greater dangers for women.

Provisions in the bill against advertising sexual services and any element of criminalization of the sex trade will further push women down back alleys, they argue.

You pet everybody else on the back but when you know I’ve got a bombshell to deliver, you want to try and avoid me at all costs

Throughout committee hearings by both the House of Commons and the Senate, some have complained that the concerns of those opposed to the bill have received short shrift compared to those who support it.

Bedford said as much Wednesday as she tried to describe how much the court challenge has cost her personally. At one point, with her allotted time running down, Runciman tried to remind her that she needed to wrap up.

“You have given lots of other people lots of time,” she complained.

“I have 30 years of your abusive laws, so I should be allowed at least an extra five minutes to talk about it. You pet everybody else on the back but when you know I’ve got a bombshell to deliver, you want to try and avoid me at all costs.”