An Act to amend the Criminal Code (declaration of exception pursuant to subsection 33(1) of the Charter for mandatory minimum sentences for child sexual abuse and exploitation material offences)

Summary#

This bill would protect existing mandatory minimum jail sentences for two crimes: possessing child sexual abuse and exploitation material, and accessing that material online. It does this by using the “notwithstanding clause” (a legal tool that lets Parliament keep a law in place even if it conflicts with certain Charter rights for up to five years).

• Keeps the current mandatory minimum sentences for possession and accessing child sexual abuse material in force.
• Says these minimums apply even if a court finds they are “cruel and unusual punishment” under section 12 of the Charter.
• Lasts for up to five years at a time and can be renewed by Parliament.
• Does not create new crimes or change the length of the minimum sentences; it only shields them from section 12 challenges.
• Applies to possession and accessing offences, not to production or distribution offences.

What it means for you#

• Individuals convicted of these offences

  • Must receive at least the mandatory minimum jail time. Judges could not go below the minimum, even in unusual cases.
  • May face less chance of non‑custodial outcomes (like fines or probation alone) for these two offences.

• Families of people convicted

  • Could see longer or firmer jail terms, with fewer exceptions based on personal circumstances.

• Victims and communities

  • May see more consistent sentences and a stronger message of denunciation for these crimes.

• Judges and lawyers

  • Judges would have less discretion to tailor a sentence below the minimum.
  • Prosecutors and defence lawyers may adjust plea discussions knowing the minimums must apply.

• General public

  • No direct change to daily life. The bill focuses on sentencing rules for two specific crimes.

Expenses#

Estimated cost: No publicly available information.

• Costs to prisons could rise if more people receive jail time or serve longer sentences because judges cannot go below the minimums.
• Court and legal system workloads could change if more cases go to trial rather than end in guilty pleas, but there is no official estimate.

Proponents' View#

• Protects children by ensuring strong, certain penalties for serious sexual exploitation crimes.
• Promotes consistent sentences across the country and reduces “lenient” outcomes in rare cases.
• Sends a clear message of denunciation and may deter would‑be offenders.
• Uses a lawful Charter tool (the notwithstanding clause) to uphold Parliament’s policy choice when courts might limit it.
• Increases public confidence that these offences carry firm consequences.

Opponents' View#

• Overrides section 12 of the Charter (protection against cruel and unusual punishment), which some see as a serious step.
• Mandatory minimums remove judicial discretion and can be unfair in unusual or low‑culpability cases.
• Research shows mandatory minimums do not clearly deter crime and can lead to more trials and delayed resolutions.
• Could raise incarceration costs for governments without proven public safety gains.
• May invite further legal challenges on other grounds and must be renewed every five years to remain in force.