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#

Bill S-240 proposes to amend the Criminal Code. It would invoke the Charter’s notwithstanding mechanism for two paragraphs that set mandatory minimum sentences for possessing or accessing child sexual abuse and exploitation material. Its stated effect is to make those paragraphs operate despite section 12 of the Charter; the bill does not state a broader goal.

• If enacted, the declaration would apply to the minimum-sentence provisions for both offences.
• The bill does not create new offences or change the minimum sentence amounts in the text provided.
• The supplied material describes this as a proposed change, not a provision in force.

What it means for you#

• People sentenced for these offences: If enacted, the specified minimum-sentence provisions would operate notwithstanding section 12 of the Charter.
• Courts: The bill would direct courts to apply those provisions despite section 12. It does not set out any new sentencing process.
• Other Charter rights: The bill names section 12 only. The supplied text does not say how the declaration would interact with other Charter rights.
• The Criminal Code itself was not supplied, so I could not verify how these provisions compare with current law beyond the bill’s summary.

Money#

No cost information is in the available material.

• The bill text provided does not set out spending, staffing, fees, fines, or funding.

What is unclear#

• The supplied text does not state when the amendment would start or give an end date for the declaration.
• It does not explain why the declaration is proposed or provide evidence supporting it.
• The Criminal Code provisions being amended were not supplied, so their current wording and sentence amounts could not be checked.

Case for#

• A possible argument for the bill is that it would preserve the operation of these mandatory minimum sentences despite section 12 challenges.
• Applying the same declaration to the provisions for both possession and accessing could make their treatment more consistent under section 12.

Case against#

• The bill would limit the use of section 12 to challenge these minimum-sentence provisions while the declaration applies.
• The supplied material does not explain why this limit is needed or how its effects would be assessed.
• The bill gives no end date in its text, leaving its duration unclear from the supplied material.