I have two comments to make.
First, the amendment is being proposed simply to section 151, so the obvious interpretation is that the discretionary clause, if it were enacted, would only apply to section 151.
My second comment, though, would perhaps speak to some of the background offered to the motion. Just to clarify, section 151 does require what we call a specific intent offence--that is, it requires the crown to prove that the accused touched a young person under that age for a sexual purpose. It doesn't apply in the situation described as a general accidental touching. Very much with this offence, it does clearly apply to a specific touching for a sexual purpose of a person under the specified age.