Thank you, Mr. Chair.
There is actually no change to the amendments I submitted. It had been my intention to submit these two amendments separately, but I guess I didn't give clear instructions to the drafters, because the two things that were in the original NDP-2 as submitted are quite different things.
The one we're voting on now asks that we amend clause 20 by deleting lines 26 to 28, as follows:
Subsequent charges not invalidated
(2) The failure of a peace officer to consider the options set out in subsection (1) does not invalidate any subsequent charges laid against the individual for the offence.
In reading that, I think I understand where it came from, but in fact it undoes the whole purpose of this bill, in my view. In other words, it says that we want you, as police, to consider diversion, but if you don't, that's okay; go ahead anyway, just like you always did—the charges can proceed.
To me, including this clause in the bill actually undoes everything else that we're laying out in the bill. That's why I'm proposing that we simply delete the proposed subsection that says subsequent charges are not invalidated if you didn't consider diversion, because in fact we're trying to make sure that diversion is considered.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.