High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Regulations: SOR/2026-202
Canada Gazette, Part II, Volume 160, Number 20
Registration
SOR/2026-202 September 25, 2026
HIGH RISK CHILD SEX OFFENDER DATABASE ACT
P.C. 2026-860 September 25, 2026
Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, makes the annexed High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Regulations under paragraph 11(b) of the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act footnote a.
High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Regulations
Definition
Definition of Act
1 In these Regulations, Act means the High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act.
Prescribed Period and Interval
Prescribed period — subsection 7(2) of the Act
2 For the purposes of subsection 7(2) of the Act, the prescribed period is 30 days after the day on which the application referred to in subsection 7(1) of the Act is received.
Prescribed period and interval — section 8 of the Act
3 For the purposes of section 8 of the Act, the Commissioner must review the information in the database by December 31 of the calendar year in which these Regulations come into force and then at least once every calendar year.
Coming into Force
Registration
4 These Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered.
REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS STATEMENT
(This statement is not part of the Regulations.)
Issues
The High Risk Child Sex Offender Database Act (HRCSODA or the Act) requires that the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) establish and administer a publicly accessible database that contains information on people who have been found guilty of sexual offences against children and who pose a high risk of committing crimes of a sexual nature. The Act requires that the Commissioner review information and make decisions on applications to remove information from the database. Regulations are needed to prescribe time periods for these processes.
Background
The HRCSODA came into force on December 31, 2024. The HRCSODA stipulates that the database will only contain information that a police service or other public authority has previously made accessible to the public, such as the person’s name, surname and aliases, date of birth, gender, physical description, including physical distinguishing marks, photographs, description of the offences committed, any conditions to which they are subject, and where they live (i.e. the city, town, municipality, or other organized district in which they reside). The High Risk Child Sex Offender Database (the database) became operational and publicly accessible on December 30, 2025.
Under the Act, a person whose information is added to the database can apply in writing to the Commissioner to have their information removed, and the Commissioner must decide whether there are reasonable grounds to remove the information. If the Commissioner does not decide within the period prescribed by regulation, the Commissioner is deemed to have decided not to remove the information (hereafter referenced as the deeming provision).
The Act also requires that the Commissioner conduct a regular review of the information included in the database to determine whether the information should be maintained. The HRCSODA provides regulation-making authority to establish timelines for the review of information following the establishment of the database, as well as at subsequent prescribed intervals.
Objective
By establishing clear time periods for the deeming provision and the regular review of information, the Regulations help ensure the information in the database remains accurate and relevant, thereby enhancing transparency and public trust in the database.
Description
In the Regulations, Act means the HRCSODA.
For the purposes of an application to remove information from the database, the Regulations establish 30 days as the period within which, if a decision is not made, the Commissioner is deemed to have decided not to remove the information.
The Regulations require that the Commissioner review the information in the database by December 31st of the calendar year in which the Regulations come into force, and then at least once every calendar year.
Regulatory development
Consultation
In November 2025, provinces and territories (PTs) were consulted via email on the proposed time periods. Initially, PTs were advised that a 30-day period was being considered for the deeming provision, and that a timeline of every six months following the launch of the database was being considered for the regular review of information. No PTs expressed concern with the proposed 30-day period for the deeming provision. However, Alberta recommended a one-year period for the review of information, as it aligned with their provincial policy and standard of practice. Alberta stated that an annual review would allow them to support the RCMP in their national database reviews and that a more frequent review would be time-consuming and onerous on all partners.
In response to the feedback received, PTs were advised that an annual review of the information on the database was being considered. British Columbia noted that a longer interval may increase the chances of the information on the database becoming out of date. The RCMP clarified that PTs can notify the RCMP at any time of changes to a person’s information on the database, if the updated information meets the criteria prescribed in the Act, or request the removal of a person’s information from the database.
Prepublication exemption from the Canada Gazette, Part I
A prepublication exemption from the Canada Gazette, Part I, was sought on the basis that the Regulations prescribe administrative time periods that reflect existing RCMP practice, impose no costs, and present no operational impacts.
The 30-day time period for the deeming provision and the annual review align with the RCMP’s operational capacity, while also supporting accuracy and administrative efficiency. Therefore, public comments were unlikely to lead to changes to the Regulations.
Indigenous engagement, consultation and modern treaty obligations
The assessment did not identify any modern treaty implications or obligations. There is no anticipated impact on Indigenous peoples of the Regulations.
Instrument choice
The development of regulations and the use of operational guidance were considered to prescribe time periods.
It was determined that relying solely on operational guidance would limit transparency and the public’s awareness of important information concerning the management and regular review of the database. Therefore, regulations were determined to be a more appropriate instrument.
Regulatory analysis
Benefits and costs
In the baseline scenario, the review of the information in the database and the decision to remove information from the database upon application are governed by the Act and the RCMP’s operational guidance. The Act does not define when a review must be conducted, nor does it specify when a removal decision must be made. Furthermore, the RCMP’s operational guidance can be changed in the future without the same level of scrutiny as required for a change to the Regulations. Since the implementation of the database, the RCMP’s guidance has implemented the same review requirements as the Regulations.
Under the regulatory scenario, there are prescribed time periods for the Commissioner of the RCMP to review the information contained in the database and make decisions on applications to remove information from the database. In addition, any changes to the Regulations will undergo standard regulatory development scrutiny that would not be exercised with respect to changes to the operational guidance. This will result in increased transparency and timeliness of removal decisions.
The cost to review and remove the information from the database will be the same under the baseline and the regulatory scenario.
Small business lens
The Regulations do not impose incremental administrative or compliance burden on small businesses.
One-for-one rule
The one-for-one rule does not apply, as there is no impact on businesses.
Regulatory cooperation and alignment
The Regulations are not related to a work plan or commitment under a formal regulatory cooperation forum.
The periods of time prescribed in the regulations will be applied consistently across Canada.
International obligations
The Regulations are not subject to obligations in Canada’s international trade agreements.
Effects on the environment
In accordance with the Cabinet Directive on Strategic Environmental and Economic Assessment, a preliminary scan concluded that a strategic environmental and economic assessment is not required.
Gender-based analysis plus
No gender-based analysis plus (GBA+) impacts have been identified.
Implementation, compliance and enforcement, and service standards
Implementation
The Regulations come into force on the day on which they are registered.
Contact
Stacey Ault
Director
Corrections and Criminal Justice Division
Crime Prevention Branch
Public Safety Canada
269 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0P8
Email: correctionspolicy-politiquecorrectionnelles@ps-sp.gc.ca