I have a question, though. I'd like to ask Ms. Morency about clause 15, and specifically proposed section 172.2. That's a rather long and technical section intended to enable the.... What's the right word? “Entrapment” is the wrong word, but it's about the evidence and conviction of someone who is attempting to lure an underage person, a person under 18, and other scenarios.
As I read it, it seems to take away a lot of the protections that are built into our Criminal Code for our citizens. It does it in a rather conspicuous way because it creates a presumption, which is not normally part of the Criminal Code but does exist in some circumstances. Proposed subsection 172.2(3) creates a presumption in the absence of evidence to the contrary that the accused knew such-and-such. Proposed subsection (4) removes a defence; it is not a defence to say that you didn't know how old the person was unless you took “reasonable steps”. Then, proposed subsection (5) says it's not a defence if the person who you were dealing with was a police officer or a peace officer, and proposed paragraph 5(b) says that it's not a defence even if there really wasn't a real young person there.
So what I'm going to ask you about is whether the Department of Justice actually walked through.... By the way, I shouldn't be taken as disagreeing with the objective of this section, which is to trap, charge, try, and convict somebody who is trying to commit a criminal offence involving a young person.
But I am asking whether or not the Department of Justice did any kind of scenario test, a walk-through, a real-life situation, to determine that an innocent person would not be entrapped and convicted unwittingly with the removal of all these mens rea types of conditions. Because as I read it, you could get a conviction here with no victim, by being set up by people simply accusing you. The fact that you thought something different wouldn't even be a defence. Because there isn't even a real person, you wouldn't have taken any steps, and you wouldn't have been able to take any steps, to reassure yourself of the contrary in terms of your perception of age.
My question is this. As we've just set up this elaborate system to trap and convict somebody, even using non-existent people and specifically managed by police, has the Department of Justice vetted this and analyzed it for the purpose of making sure we haven't set up some system here that's going to trap an innocent citizen?