I'm just going to echo the sentiments, again, of Mr. Brock. I think that if we were to go and look....
Candidly—it may not surprise people around the table—I'm a bit of a nerd. I still read a lot of case law because I find it interesting, and I also want to know what we're dealing with, especially in areas like this.
When it comes to B.C. Court of Appeal decisions and B.C. Supreme Court decisions, for instance, I frequently read the decisions. I can tell you that it is not uncommon but actually very common to have sentences for offences under subsection 163.1(4) of the Criminal Code—which is the possession of child sexual abuse and exploitation materials—be under two years or for the cases to not be proceeded with by indictment, and that sometimes is done by consent.
When we look at this and consider whether or not that person should be registered, at the end of the day, not only has somebody victimized that child, but that child has been revictimized, in the case of possession of those materials, time after time after time. Research tells us that the person who has done so is at an elevated risk, a substantial risk—not even just a 50%-plus, but a substantial and elevated risk—to offend. Somebody who is seeking out that material is seeking it out for a reason, and in my view, there is often an escalation of what somebody does. Usually the offending behaviour does not decrease, but it will increase. I don't know how we, as a committee and as parliamentarians, wouldn't want to recommend the inclusion of such people, rather than restricting them because so few people will be caught by this.
I'm mindful of the presumption, but this isn't a matter of presumption. We in Parliament should be speaking and saying that those who are at a heightened risk or who are even at risk to offend against children will not be presumptive; they will be included on the registry.