Criminal lawyers, like almost everyone else nowadays, have an internet listserve. On reading the new proposed prostitution legislation (which criminalizes the buying of sex) one wag commented, "lots more work from people used to paying sizeable hourly rates".
Constitutional lawyers will particularly benefit from the proposed legislation. The Supreme Court ruled that laws criminalizing aspects of prostitution, although not criminalizing prostitution itself, put prostitutes at physical risk and are unconstitutional. The proposed legislation in its current form is of doubtful constitutionality and will certainly be challenged in court.
The Protection of Communities and Exploited Persons Act, as the proposed legislation is formally called, imposes draconian punishments on anyone paying for sexual activity. Conceptually the legislation is based on the idea that sexing sex is not forbidden but buying sex is. The curious concept of legalizing sale while criminalizing buying is almost certainly a result of the Supreme Court of Canada's finding that making illegal activity surrounding the legal act of prostitution could be unconstitutional.
Here, broadly put, the legislation does not criminalize the activities around the sale of sex.
As a result, on a rather mechanical reading of the Supreme Court's ruling, the new legislation might survive.
All that said, the real question is whether prostitution should be legal. If society considers prostitution should be illegal then a direct prohibition of prostitution should be imposed. Almost all American states criminalize prostitution and the legal regime has proven unproblematic (although it has done little to curb prostitution).
My own view is that prostitution should not be treated as a criminal matter but rather as public welfare and health issue. Prostitution should be discouraged but by incentives and funding to allow people to escape prostitution. The criminal law should not be used.