Evidence of meeting #131 for Justice and Human Rights in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was offence.
A video is available from Parliament.
Beaches—East York, Lib.
Yes. I certainly didn't draft this myself. As long as he gets what we're trying to drive at, that's the goal here. I defer to the drafters on that.
February 21st, 2019 / 9:05 a.m.
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
The way Bill C-84 reads now, as introduced, the definition of bestiality was added as proposed subsection 160(4), after the offence provisions. If they are following the usual order, the Criminal Code would say, “This is an offence, and here's the penalty. In addition to that penalty, here would be the prohibition order or restitution.” The definition would normally come at the end of the sequencing of the subsections.
Beaches—East York, Lib.
So, in terms of ordering, it's as simple as taking the definition of bestiality and placing it in proposed subsection 160(7), and bumping everything else up.
Is that right? That sounds fine to me.
Liberal
Beaches—East York, Lib.
It would just be an ordering issue.
I understand that the definition of bestiality would become proposed subsection 160(7), and everything else would.... “The court may, in addition to any other sentence that it may impose” would now become proposed subsection 160(4), with 160(4)(a) and 160(4)(b). Then, the breach of order—“Every one who contravenes an order”—which is currently 160(6), would become 160(5), and 160(7)—“Sections 740 to 741.2 apply”—would become 160(6). Then the definition of bestiality would become proposed subsection 160(7).
That is what I understand. That sounds fine to me.
Liberal
Beaches—East York, Lib.
Everything in my amendment just becomes.... We have 160(4)(a) and 160(4)(b). Then six becomes five; seven becomes six; and the definition of bestiality becomes proposed subsection 160(7).
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Yes, I understand.
Again, the first line would be 160(4), and then 160(4)(a) and 160(4)(b). Then we have five and six, as application, and then the definition of bestiality would move down to seven.
Does everybody get that, colleagues? Is everybody okay with that?
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 1 as amended agreed to)
(Clause 2 agreed to)
(On clause 3)
On clause 3, we have three identical amendments: PV-1, NDP-1 and LIB-2. The three are identical. The two that aren't carried would just disappear.
Ms. May submitted it first. She's not here. The next submission was NDP-1.
Mr. Davies.
NDP
Don Davies NDP Vancouver Kingsway, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Briefly, the way I understand the current section of the Criminal Code.... Subsection 447(3) reads:
A peace officer who finds cocks in a cockpit or on premises where a cockpit is located shall seize them and take them before a justice who shall order them to be destroyed.
As it's presently worded, it's mandatory that the seized birds be destroyed. The proposed amendment would leave it to the discretion of the authorities to determine whether there is any ability to rehabilitate the animals, or birds, on a case-by-case basis.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Are there any comments on that one? I think this is probably agreeable to everybody because we previously discussed this at committee.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 3 as amended agreed to)
The next amendments were PV-2, NDP-2 and CPC-1. Those are deemed not receivable, because of the carrying of LIB-1, which was identical in terms of effects.
Now we move to CPC-2.
Mr. Cooper.
St. Albert—Edmonton, CPC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This amendment would simply amend subsection 490.011(1), which defines a designated offence in order to require an individual who is defined as a designated offender to register in the sex offender registry.
Currently, it provides that an individual who is convicted of compelling the commission of bestiality under subsection 160(2) would have to register, as well as an individual convicted under subsection 160(3)—namely, bestiality in the presence of or by a child.
This amendment would close the loophole so that anyone convicted of a bestiality offence would be required to register. It closes what I believe is a loophole, which is supported by the testimony of the sergeant from the Ottawa Police Service.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Would it be bestiality simpliciter that would be covered by this?
Liberal
Colin Fraser Liberal West Nova, NS
Can I just ask the officials for their take on this?
Maybe I'll preface it this way: I'm a little concerned that if we're making it bestiality simpliciter, and the effect of that is a requirement to be on the sex offender registry, there could be circumstances in which there is no risk to an individual—as there would be in other instances, where perhaps a child is involved or something like that, which completely makes sense.
I'm wondering if I'm reading that correctly and what the department's take on that amendment will be.
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
As the committee may know, the Sex Offender Information Registration Act was enacted in 2004. When it was first enacted, they only had the Criminal Code subsection 160(3) offence, bestiality involving a child, as a designated offence. In 2011, the act was amended, and the Criminal Code subsection 160(2) offence, compelling another person to commit, was added.
I'll go back one more step. When the SOIRA was first enacted, it was to create a tool for law enforcement to better track and monitor persons who were at a higher risk of reoffending, through the listing of designated sexual offences. Non-sexual offences are designated, but the Crown would have to show that the offence was committed to facilitate the commission of a sexual offence. It's always linked back to a sexual offence as a core criterion.
My understanding is that the simpliciter offence has not been added, either upon original enactment or when the act was amended, primarily because at the time there was less evidence to show that persons who engaged in simpliciter offences were at risk of reoffending to commit a sexual offence against a person.
I think the committee has received evidence from a number of witnesses to indicate some of the concerns that they've addressed in terms of linkages to other issues, but at its core, when it's listed for the purpose of the Sex Offender Information Registration Act, the intention is to try to prevent somebody who's at a risk of committing a sexual offence against another person. That's usually the criterion.
Liberal
Ron McKinnon Liberal Coquitlam—Port Coquitlam, BC
I'm wondering if Ms. Morency could tell us what the consequences of being included in the sex offender registry are to an individual's civil liberties.
Director General and Senior General Counsel, Criminal Law Policy Section, Policy Sector, Department of Justice
For sure, the consequences of being required to register are significant. I'm not a leading expert in the area, but generally, the offender is required to register upon conviction, to provide their address and name. If they plan to leave the country, for example, there are all sorts of requirements for what they have to provide. It is very much a tool that impacts the individual. Over time, there have been some challenges to the scope of that, but it's been upheld because of the linkage to the objective, and it's tied to persons that the evidence shows are at a greater risk of reoffending.
The simpliciter offence is, in the way it has been treated to his point, a bit different from the other two offences for bestiality.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Anthony Housefather
Thank you very much.
We have Mr. MacKenzie, then Mr. Davies, and then we're going to take a brief pause.
Mr. MacKenzie.
Conservative
Dave MacKenzie Conservative Oxford, ON
I would support this amendment.
One of the things I think you will find in history is that the people who are convicted of bestiality offences typically are looking for opportunities. It may be, as gross as it seems, with dogs or horses or cattle, but it also spills over into the opportunity.
They tend to look for easy victims, children and so on, so putting them on the sex offender registry means that when it comes time to conduct investigations, that's where you have to look to see what you have in your community. It's not to be penalizing innocent folks or anything of that nature, but it is to make the community a safer place.
I think that's the evidence we heard.