S-240 (45-1) - 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)
Chamber
senate
Stage
1st Reading
Introduced
Nov 5, 2025
Progress
This bill uses the Charter's notwithstanding clause to protect mandatory minimum sentences for child sexual abuse material offences from being struck down.
Key Changes
- Invokes Section 33 (the notwithstanding clause) of the Charter for mandatory minimum sentences related to child sexual abuse material offences
- Shields mandatory minimum sentences for possession of child sexual abuse and exploitation material from Section 12 Charter challenges
- Shields mandatory minimum sentences for accessing child sexual abuse and exploitation material from Section 12 Charter challenges
- Amends Section 163.1 of the Criminal Code by adding a new subsection (4.11) containing the notwithstanding declaration
Gotchas
- The notwithstanding clause declaration expires after five years unless renewed, meaning Parliament would need to re-invoke it to keep the protection in place long-term
- Invoking the notwithstanding clause only shields these sentences from Section 12 (cruel and unusual punishment) challenges — other Charter challenges on different grounds could still proceed
- This bill does not create new offences or change the length of mandatory minimum sentences; it only protects existing sentences from being struck down by courts
- Use of the notwithstanding clause is constitutionally permitted but historically rare at the federal level, making this a significant procedural step
- The bill does not address Section 7 (life, liberty, and security) or other Charter provisions that courts have sometimes used to evaluate sentencing
Who's Affected
- Individuals charged with or convicted of possessing child sexual abuse and exploitation material
- Individuals charged with or convicted of accessing child sexual abuse and exploitation material
- Defence lawyers and Crown prosecutors handling these cases
- Judges, who would lose discretion to depart from mandatory minimums on Section 12 Charter grounds
- Child protection advocates and organizations
Vibes
0 responses
Gotchas
- The notwithstanding clause declaration expires after five years unless renewed, meaning Parliament would need to re-invoke it to keep the protection in place long-term
- Invoking the notwithstanding clause only shields these sentences from Section 12 (cruel and unusual punishment) challenges — other Charter challenges on different grounds could still proceed
- This bill does not create new offences or change the length of mandatory minimum sentences; it only protects existing sentences from being struck down by courts
- Use of the notwithstanding clause is constitutionally permitted but historically rare at the federal level, making this a significant procedural step
- The bill does not address Section 7 (life, liberty, and security) or other Charter provisions that courts have sometimes used to evaluate sentencing
Summary
This bill amends the Criminal Code to invoke the 'notwithstanding clause' (Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) for mandatory minimum sentences related to possessing and accessing child sexual abuse and exploitation material. By doing this, Parliament declares that these mandatory minimum sentences will remain in force even if a court finds they violate Section 12 of the Charter, which protects against cruel and unusual punishment. The bill was introduced in the Senate by Senator Housakos. It responds to the legal vulnerability of mandatory minimum sentences, several of which have been struck down by Canadian courts in recent years for violating Section 12 of the Charter. By invoking the notwithstanding clause, Parliament would shield these specific sentences from being invalidated on those grounds. The people most directly affected are individuals convicted of possessing or accessing child sexual abuse and exploitation material, who would face mandatory minimum sentences regardless of any Charter challenge based on cruel and unusual punishment. The bill reflects a broader debate in Canada about the use of the notwithstanding clause and the role of Parliament versus the courts in setting criminal sentencing policy.
Automatically generated from bill text using Claude
Vibes
0 responses