I'll be really short on the second one. It's just that I think it's important to understand this.
The second one goes a bit further, and this picks up on a statement I made and a comment the other side had. Mr. Rathgeber and I had a bit of a conversation on this.
The first amendment I made relates to indictable offences. The second one is by summary conviction, and it says that the court shall not make the order under subsection (1)--that's automatically applied for--if the conviction is imposed pursuant to a proceeding by way of summary conviction unless the court believes it is in the public interest to do so.
The reason I have split the indictable offences and summary is that this also now allows a little bit of prosecutorial discretion when the charge is laid. So a prosecutor, when laying the charge, can choose to go by way of summary conviction, knowing that if they do that the test for registration will be a little bit less. It will be whether the court believes it's in the public interest to do so.
In summary, I think this fixes the problem we all heard, that applications are automatic, and it preserves judicial and prosecutorial discretion in the appropriate amount. I would urge all committee members to support this, and I point out one last time that the list of offences that we are purporting to make automatic is far longer than Ontario's and we've heard no evidence about the impact that might have on people.
The last point I'll make in speaking in favour of these amendments is that we heard evidence from a number of witnesses that simply opening up the registry to mass registration may be counterproductive in that we will be registering all sorts of people who are not appropriately registered, and this may actually slow down police investigations and make them less efficient in investigating sex offences because they'll be checking out people who there really is no need to check out.