The law in Canada regarding child pornography is so broad that a depiction including stick figures having sex with an arrow pointing to it and the caption "children having sex for my gratification" would count as child pornography.

Canada has both juries and common law; I can't imagine a conviction for something so lacking in obvious criminal intent.

It all depends on how outraged the populace is about the subject matter. criminal intent is secondary.

This is true. Some countries allow less realistic content but not more realistic content despite it being a wholly arbitrary differentiation.

Many filters censor all of it, regardless of legality and boast 99% abuse detection rates with a low false positive rate. Some filters only the more realistic content.

Realistic content does admittedly have a problem where it may become difficult for a human to differentiate it from unlawful content. Although in that particular case, it is hoped it would end up competing with unlawful content and drive demand for it down.

People with some degree of awareness to the children harmed to produce the content will not want to contribute to it when there are other avenues which are virtually indistinguishable. It may be possible to do outreach in legal outlets to raise awareness of harms or provide resources to prevent them from committing serious crime.

Canada has the rule of law, not the mob, and protected expression.

Relevant:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Sharpe

In the English parliament, when the English were deciding to b an cartoons too, one MP asked precisely this question: would it be illegal to create such a stick figure cartoon under the proposed law? Another MP answered that it would be. The law was passed unchanged.