Bill C-15A · 37th Parliament · Jean Chrétien
Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2001
An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to amend other Acts
Government bill. Became law.
- IntroducedDone
- Debated in principleDone
- Studied by a committeeDone
- Passed its first chamberOct. 18, 2001
- Passed the second chamberMarch 18, 2002
- Became lawJune 4, 2002
Leading supporters
Ranked by the part each played: who is responsible for the bill, who carried it, and who spoke for it most.
- Jean ChrétienPrime Minister
Who carries this bill
Arrows run from the person responsible to those who answer to them on this bill. The critic leads the Senate’s scrutiny and answers to no one on it.
Where members stand
Votes and debate for this bill have not been read yet.
How it changed on the way
61% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (24,201 words introduced, 16,992 passed). A committee amended it.
substantial changeintent mostly kept
The bill kept its core amendments on child pornography offences, computer prohibitions, seizures and forfeiture but added new statutory defences during committee review. It also gained the royal assent date and minor wording updates before becoming law.
- Added explicit defences of artistic merit or educational, scientific or medical purpose for child pornography charges.
After: “(6) Where the accused is charged with an offence under subsection (2), (3), (4) or (4.1), the court shall find the accused not guilty if the representation or written material that is alleged to constitute child pornography has artistic merit or an educational, scientific or medical purpose.”
How precisely it is written
mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate
The bill mixes exact ages, fixed penalties, and defined terms with subjective phrases that invite argument. Several provisions turn on judicial opinions or reasonable inferences rather than bright-line rules.
Open to argument
“has artistic merit or an educational, scientific or medical purpose”
Artistic merit is a subjective standard that requires case-by-case judgment.“if the judge or justice is of the opinion that the exclusion is necessary”
Relies on the presiding judge's personal assessment rather than an objective test.“give rise to a reasonable inference that it was transferred for the purpose of avoiding forfeiture”
Inference standard leaves room for differing interpretations of the same facts.
Clear-cut
“under the age of fourteen years”
Uses a clear numerical age threshold.“liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years”
States a fixed maximum sentence in years.“means any thing that is designed to be used to cause injury or death to, or to temporarily incapacitate, a person”
Supplies an explicit definition of weapon.
Discretion. Judges and the Attorney General retain wide discretion through phrases such as may order, shall consider, and if satisfied on a balance of probabilities.
Challenging the law itself. Vague standards such as artistic merit and judicial opinion could be challenged under Charter section 2(b) or for vagueness and overbreadth.
Disputing a charge under it. Objective elements like listed ages and maximum sentences are easy to apply, but purpose and inference requirements allow factual disputes.
Read by a language model from the royal assent text; every quoted phrase appears in the bill. A reading of the drafting, not legal advice.
Did it work?
no evaluation found
Who lobbied on it
No lobbying registration naming this bill is loaded.
Stages and dates from LEGISinfo.