Tougher Penalties for Sexual Exploitation

Summary#

This bill changes parts of Canada’s Criminal Code to raise penalties for sexual exploitation and to treat offences against people with disabilities more seriously at sentencing. It sets a mandatory minimum jail term of 1 year for certain sexual exploitation offences and directs judges to treat a victim’s disability as an aggravating factor (a reason to increase a sentence) when sentencing for obtaining sexual services.

• Sets a 1-year minimum jail term for summary convictions of sexual exploitation under s.153 (Bill amending Criminal Code s.153(1.1)(b)).
• Sets a 1-year minimum jail term for both indictable and summary convictions under s.153.1 (sexual exploitation of a person with a disability), with a maximum of 14 years on indictment (Bill amending Criminal Code s.153.1(1)(a)-(b)).
• Requires courts to treat a victim’s mental or physical disability as an aggravating factor when sentencing someone for obtaining sexual services (Criminal Code s.286.1(1)-(2)) (Bill adding provision after s.286.1).
• Does not create new programs or funding; it changes sentencing rules only.
• Effective date: Data unavailable.

What it means for you#

• Households

  • If a family member with a disability is a victim in a case of obtaining sexual services, the judge must consider that disability as a reason to increase the sentence (after s.286.1).
  • In sexual exploitation cases involving youth or persons with disabilities, courts must impose at least 1 year in jail if there is a conviction under the amended provisions (s.153(1.1)(b); s.153.1(1)).

• Workers

  • People in positions of trust or authority (for example, teachers, coaches, caregivers) convicted of sexual exploitation face a minimum of 1 year in jail even on a summary conviction (s.153(1.1)(b)).
  • Those convicted under s.153.1 (sexual exploitation of a person with a disability) face at least 1 year in jail whether the Crown proceeds by indictment or summary conviction, and up to 14 years if by indictment (s.153.1(1)).

• Defendants

  • Mandatory minimums limit judicial discretion. If convicted under the amended provisions, the judge must impose at least 1 year in custody (s.153(1.1)(b); s.153.1(1)).
  • For offences of obtaining sexual services, a victim’s disability will count against the offender at sentencing and can increase the length of the sentence (after s.286.1).

• Businesses and nonprofits

  • Agencies that work with vulnerable people may need to update training and policies to reflect higher penalties and the specific protection for persons with disabilities in relevant cases. Data on compliance costs: Data unavailable.

• Courts and police

  • Police and Crown prosecutors must charge and proceed under provisions that now include 1-year minimums for the listed offences, and present evidence on disability when relevant to sentencing in s.286.1 cases (s.153(1.1)(b); s.153.1(1); after s.286.1).
  • Courts must apply the new mandatory minimums and consider disability as an aggravating factor for s.286.1 offences.

Expenses#

Estimated net cost: Data unavailable.

• No direct appropriations or new revenues in the bill; it changes sentencing rules only.
• Potential impacts on correctional and court costs from longer sentences: Data unavailable.
• No official fiscal note identified: Data unavailable.

Proponents' View#

• Harsher penalties reflect the seriousness of sexual exploitation and ensure meaningful punishment. The bill sets a uniform 1-year minimum for s.153.1 and for summary convictions under s.153 (s.153(1.1)(b); s.153.1(1)).
• The 14-year maximum on indictment for s.153.1 underscores denunciation and protection of vulnerable people (s.153.1(1)(a)).
• Recognizing a victim’s disability as an aggravating factor for obtaining sexual services targets offenders who exploit heightened vulnerability (after s.286.1).
• A clear minimum sentence reduces disparity and signals consistent national standards for these offences (s.153(1.1)(b); s.153.1(1)).
• Supporters argue this may deter exploitation and better protect people with disabilities and youth; effect on deterrence not quantified. Assumption noted.

Opponents' View#

• Mandatory minimums remove judicial discretion and can produce disproportionate sentences in atypical cases; risk of constitutional challenges similar to other minimums. Litigation and compliance costs: Data unavailable. Assumption noted.
• Higher mandatory minimums can encourage more accused to go to trial rather than plead, increasing court workloads and delays. Impact size: Data unavailable. Assumption noted.
• Longer custody terms can raise correctional costs, especially for sentences of 2 years less a day that are served in provincial facilities. Fiscal impact: Data unavailable. Assumption noted.
• Adding disability as an aggravating factor in s.286.1 cases may have uneven application if disability status is unclear or contested, creating evidentiary disputes at sentencing. Frequency and impact: Data unavailable. Assumption noted.