The proposed amendments to the Criminal Code aim to redefine the term "child pornography" to "child sexual abuse and exploitation material." This change comes with stricter penalties for offenses related to the creation, distribution, and possession of such materials, with prison terms ranging from one to fourteen years. The reforms also impose a higher burden of proof on defendants to show they verified the age of individuals in questioned materials.
This bill may significantly impact law enforcement, the judicial system, and communities. Victims of exploitation might see increased support and better protection, as the new terminology emphasizes the crime's seriousness. However, individuals who inadvertently fall into the legal crosshairs due to misinterpretation or lack of understanding about the law could also be adversely affected.
The implementation of these amendments is likely to incur substantial costs for the government and taxpayers. Increased demands on the judicial system may require additional funding for court resources and personnel training to adapt to the new definitions. This includes potential costs for training law enforcement and legal professionals and additional money to support victim protection programs. If the legal system becomes bogged down with backlog cases due to the new requirements, it could lead to increased court costs and prolonged trials.
Supporters of these amendments argue that the change in terminology accurately reflects the severity of the offenses and may increase public awareness about child exploitation. They believe that higher penalties will deter potential offenders, create a safer environment for victims to report abuse, and result in improved law enforcement response. By shifting the focus to the abusive nature of these actions, advocates assert that society can generate greater awareness and preventive measures against exploitation.
Critics argue that the reforms could overwhelm the judicial system, leading to longer case backlogs and needing more resources. They raise concerns over potential misinterpretation of the law, which could result in wrongful accusations against innocent individuals who do not fully understand the implications of their actions. Additionally, detractors emphasize that addressing the root causes of child exploitation may require more focus and funding on preventive and educational programs rather than solely on legal terminology. The financial burden of re-training legal staff and implementing new procedures further complicates the practicality of the bill.
That the bill be now read a third time and do pass.
That the bill be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.