I think in response to whether the definition as such could include sexually explicit material, some of what is referenced, some of the new stuff, and changes in Bill C-54, I think it could. Changing the terminology really doesn't change the definition per se. It is a terminology change that I think is key, but the definition that comes in section 163.1 I think could be broadened at the beginning. I think it's somewhat outdated, perhaps, or minimal, and I think it can be an all-in-one definition, which could then capture perhaps some of the things you're suggesting, yes.
On January 31st, 2011. See this statement in context.