Bill C-275, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual assault material), would amend the federal Criminal Code by adding offences involving “sexual assault material.” Its stated purpose is to make certain activities involving these recordings criminal offences. The supplied material does not say whether the bill has passed or when it would come into force; these are proposed provisions, not provisions shown here to be in force.
The bill defines sexual assault material as a visual recording that explicitly and realistically depicts non-consensual sexual intercourse or another sexual activity that violates a person’s sexual integrity.
Knowingly making, printing, publishing, or possessing the material for publication would be an indictable offence, punishable by up to 14 years in prison, a fine of up to $100,000, or both.
Knowingly transmitting, making available, distributing, selling, advertising, importing, exporting, or possessing it for those purposes would also be an indictable offence, with the same maximum penalties.
Knowingly possessing the material would be punishable either by indictment (up to five years in prison and/or a $50,000 fine) or by summary conviction (up to two years less a day in prison and/or a $20,000 fine).
Knowingly causing the material to be viewed by, or transmitted to, oneself would be an offence punishable either by indictment (up to 10 years in prison and/or a $50,000 fine) or by summary conviction (up to two years less a day in prison and/or a $20,000 fine).
A court sentencing someone convicted under the new section would have to treat intent to make a profit as an aggravating factor (a factor that weighs toward a more serious sentence). A legitimate purpose related to justice, science, medicine, education, or art would prevent conviction under the section.
People who make or publish recordings: The proposed offence would apply to knowingly making, printing, or publishing recordings that meet the definition. For that offence only, believing the activity was consensual would not be a defence unless the person took all reasonable steps to check consent and, if it was consensual, to ensure the recording did not depict it as non-consensual.
People who distribute, possess, or access recordings: The bill would create separate offences for the listed activities. The consent-belief defence described above applies only to the making-and-publication offence, not the other offences.
People with a legitimate purpose: The text says no one could be convicted under the new section if the conduct had a legitimate purpose related to the administration of justice, science, medicine, education, or art. The bill does not define “legitimate purpose.”
The public: The bill does not create a new agency, benefit, tax, or front-line service. The supplied material does not explain how these proposed offences would interact with existing Criminal Code offences.
The supplied material does not establish the bill’s status or when any provisions would start.
“Sexual integrity,” “explicit,” “realistic,” and “legitimate purpose” are not defined in the supplied text.
The definition concerns what the recording depicts; it does not expressly require that the recording itself was made without consent.
The text gives no details about how cases would be investigated or prosecuted, or how the new offences would overlap with current law. The Criminal Code provisions needed to check that overlap were not supplied.
The bill appears intended to address recordings that depict sexual activity as non-consensual, by creating offences covering making and sharing them as well as possessing or accessing them.
Including access and possession offences could allow criminal charges for conduct that does not involve distributing or selling the material.
The legitimate-purpose exception could protect uses tied to justice, science, medicine, education, or art.
The offences cover a wide range of conduct, including knowingly accessing the material; the bill does not set out detailed limits for that offence beyond its definition of access.
Key terms, including “sexual integrity” and “legitimate purpose,” are undefined in the supplied text, leaving their application unclear.
The bill provides no detail on how the offences would fit with existing Criminal Code provisions or what enforcement would cost.