An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children and other vulnerable persons) and the Canada Evidence Act

How it changed on the way

84% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (12,780 words introduced, 8,796 passed). A committee amended it.

substantial changeintent mostly kept

The bill kept its core aim of strengthening child protection in the Criminal Code but added mandatory minimum prison terms to several sexual offences against children. These minimums were inserted during passage and account for most of the 84% text change.

• Added minimum sentences for sexual interference.

  Before: “(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years;”

  After: “(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of forty-five days;”

• Added minimum sentences for invitation to sexual touching.

  Before: “(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years;”

  After: “(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of forty-five days;”

• Added minimum sentences for sexual exploitation.

  Before: “(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years;”

  After: “(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of forty-five days;”

How precisely it is written

mixedChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Moderate

The bill uses exact ages, fixed minimum sentences and detailed offence descriptions that allow quick application in many cases. It also relies on open-ended phrases such as exploitative relationships and reasonable expectation of privacy that require case-by-case argument.

Open to argument

• “is in a relationship with the complainant that is exploitative of the complainant”

  The term 'exploitative' supplies no objective test or list of factors, leaving its meaning to judicial interpretation.

• “circumstances that give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy”

  The phrase imports a subjective standard that varies with context and invites prolonged factual disputes.

• “serve the public good and do not extend beyond what serves the public good”

  The public-good defence uses a broad, value-laden standard without defined boundaries.

• “does not pose an undue risk of harm to persons under the age of eighteen years”

  The word 'undue' is undefined and depends on discretionary assessment of risk.

Clear-cut

• “No person aged twelve or thirteen years shall be tried for an offence under section 151 or 152”

  The age threshold and listed sections create a bright-line rule.

• “liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of forty-five days”

  Numerical maximum and mandatory minimum penalties are stated without qualification.

• “under the age of fourteen years”

  Repeated use of a fixed chronological age supplies an objective trigger for the offence.

Discretion. Almost no power is delegated to ministers or regulations; application rests with police, prosecutors and courts.

Challenging the law itself. Vague phrases such as 'exploitative' and 'reasonable expectation of privacy' could support a section 7 Charter challenge on grounds of vagueness or overbreadth.

Disputing a charge under it. Accused persons can readily dispute whether a relationship was exploitative or whether privacy expectations were reasonable, requiring evidence and argument.

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.