Justice committee  While I wasn't privy to the evidence that was available at the time it was originally enacted, it's certainly my review of the transcripts.... I wasn't able to access all of the studies that were provided to the committee. I always think that is a great idea if the committee is a

Justice committee  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 Crimina

Justice committee  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 so

Justice committee  That would be an issue for our colleagues, the legislative drafters, in terms of what the usual approach is. Ultimately, if the committee is concerned with the core elements that it wants to ensure are there, I think you can address it that way.

Justice committee  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 pen

Justice committee  It would end with.... It would be, “in addition to any other sentence that it may impose”, then comma, and then you have (a) and (b), with the changes that have been noted about the deletion of “or a bird”. One of the other distinctions would be.... Perhaps the legislative draft

Justice committee  Thank you. Just as a general approach, certainly modelling the other provision that's there now would help with the consistency so that you are ensuring that, to the extent the existing provision has been interpreted and applied, courts will be looking to implement it in a consi

Justice committee  I would agree. In terms of the basis or the rationale, the model used for it is the one that exists now in section 447.1, and there it does use “the accused”, but the point is correct. Today, if everything were to be completely modernized and updated, normally the language woul

Justice committee  The issue has been discussed through FPT forums leading up to the introduction of Bill C-75 and since, as a result of criticism being raised after the tabling of the bill. They're still working through this issue from their perspective in the sense that they now have the power un

Justice committee  —and re-enact the entirety, which includes a mandatory minimum as well as a higher maximum on summary conviction.

Justice committee  One, it's a drafting protocol. In terms of why Bill C-75, as introduced, does not propose to increase the maximum to two years less a day for those over 16, it would have involved repealing the provision that is there now and then re-enacting the provision with the mandatory mini

Justice committee  Well, that's what my understanding—

Justice committee  The motion is seeking to increase the maximum from 18 months to two years less a day for victims over the age of 16. But in doing so, the process in this motion, the way it's drafted, would repeal what is there in the Criminal Code now—

Justice committee  That's my understanding, because it's already—

Justice committee  —under summary conviction. That's correct.