There is jurisprudence under the Criminal Code that has interpreted the concept of abetting an offence to take place. Though in the dictionary definition “abetting” can mean “aiding” and also “encouraging”, the interpretation that the courts have most consistently given to the word “abetting” is that it means “encouraging” in the criminal law context. Otherwise, it would simply be replicating “aiding”, for instance. It's interpreted to have a different meaning.
This is consistent throughout the criminal law, not just in the context of this particular offence. The idea was that because abetting a person to die by suicide would actually be interpreted as encouraging them, which is much more consistent or analogous to the concept of counselling, which is also inciting and promoting and that sort of thing, abetting a person to die by suicide was relocated into paragraph (a), where it's situated next to the concept of counselling. As I mentioned, these two things are more similarly associated with each other, and it also allows for the exemptions to be cleanly applicable to “aiding”, which is in the provision of the substance that the person would use, without leaving the impression that it could be exempted from criminal liability to encourage a person to die by suicide.
So by moving “abetting” into paragraph (a), and making the exemptions applicable only to (b), which now is limited to “aiding”, the legislation is distinguishing between moral support and moral encouragement from the physical assistance.