An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (child sexual abuse and exploitation material)

How it changed on the way

88% of the text as introduced was changed or removed by the time it became law (1,851 words introduced, 2,037 passed). A committee amended it.

substantial changeintent broadened

The bill expanded the key term from “child sexual abuse material” to “child sexual abuse and exploitation material” throughout the Criminal Code amendments. It also updated dates, changed “Her Majesty” to “His Majesty,” and adjusted related definitions and cross-references.

• The short and long titles were lengthened to include exploitation.

  Before: “An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (child sexual abuse material)”

  After: “An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (child sexual abuse and exploitation material)”

• References to the monarch were updated.

  Before: “Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada”

  After: “His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada”

How precisely it is written

mostly preciseChallenging the law: ModerateDisputing a charge: Hard

The bill replaces the prior term with a new label and lists specific prohibited acts such as making, transmitting or possessing the material, each carrying fixed maximum and minimum prison terms. It relies on defined judicial tests like reasonable grounds and balance of probabilities rather than open-ended discretion.

Open to argument

• “took all reasonable steps to ascertain the age”

  The phrase introduces a fact-specific reasonableness standard that can generate prolonged argument over compliance.

Clear-cut

• “guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year”

  Exact maximum and minimum sentences remove uncertainty about available penalties.

• “If the court is satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the material is child sexual abuse and exploitation material”

  Uses a clear, objective evidentiary threshold rather than subjective opinion.

Discretion. No new powers are delegated to ministers, officials or regulations; all operative rules and penalties are set directly in the Criminal Code.

Challenging the law itself. A vagueness or overbreadth challenge under Charter s. 2(b) could be brought against the renamed definition, though the existing detailed criteria make success uncertain.

Disputing a charge under it. The offences enumerate concrete acts (make, transmit, possess, access) and the interpretive provision supplies an objective test for accessing, leaving little room to dispute coverage once facts are found.

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.