I will direct my question to you, Professor Sankoff.
Perhaps you could address the issue of amending section 160 of the Criminal Code and the need to close a gap that currently exists.
I characterized it when the minister appeared before the committee as a loophole. The minister said he wouldn't necessarily accept it as a loophole, citing other sections of the Criminal Code that might be applicable, especially in cases involving children, including sexual interference and sexual exploitation.
It's true that those particular sections encompass sexual contact with children, including touching with an object, but I would submit that the word “object” doesn't seem to be necessarily applicable in terms of referring to animals as objects. Certainly, the ordinary dictionary definition of object refers to inanimate things.
I was wondering if you could comment on the need for this loophole to be closed and how that relates to other sections of the Criminal Code.