To echo what I said earlier, my belief is that the loophole needs to be closed. As a part-time defence lawyer, I struggle with the term “loophole”, but I will say that the gap in the legislation needs to be closed, mainly for the reason I expressed earlier, that being that right now the problem is that touching an animal in a sexual way is simply not considered within the scope of bestiality.
What I think the minister was referring to is in sections 151 and 152. I take your point that it might be possible in some of those situations where you're involving a child...I think it's conceivable that you could refer to an animal as an object, but I do share your concern that it is not the best way to address this problem. I think it's possible that it would not be considered an object, and it would be left up to the court to interpret in a particular situation whether or not the animal did qualify within the context of section 151.
If you amend the bill as you're proposing to do here under section 160, I think you close any of that ambiguity. There is no room going forward, because it would be clear that any situation involving bestiality, which would be any sexual touching with an animal, would automatically fall within the revamped section 160.
I do take your point. I agree, I think with both you and the minister, that it is possible that section 151 could cover this conduct, but it would only cover this conduct where a child was involved. It would obviously not cover a situation where the animal and the offender were together alone, and it might not even do so, depending upon how a court viewed the interpretation of “object”. Closing this gap is I think desirable for both situations.