Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Glover, I care as deeply about victims as you do. I care as much about the safety of my children as you care about the safety of your family. I honestly believe the approach you're taking is one you believe is in the best interests of the public, and I would put to you that I believe what I'm doing is in the best interests of the public, so we should start the debate there.
There's no unanimity on this, but more often than not the concern of chiefs of police and different officers I've talked to about the sex offender registry is the number of people left off who shouldn't have been. It's a concern I share; it's why I support this legislation. They also expressed concern that for this list to be effective, it's essential that the people who are on this list are the right people, because time is of the essence when they're going to houses.
One of the things you stated in your comments--and it has been stated by that side--is that you believe in prosecutorial discretion, in discretion by officers, but you don't believe in judicial discretion, and I think there is a contradiction there. If you believe that to make sure mistakes aren't made--and mistakes do happen--you set an extremely high bar that says--and I'm quoting directly from this amendment--“grossly disproportionate to the public interest”.
That isn't some giant hoop you can leap through; that is an extremely high bar. You've rightfully made the point that an officer and a prosecutor must have discretion, also with a very high bar, so we should enable our judiciary to have discretion, because things can transpire that we as a committee can't contemplate. To tie the hands of the judiciary, to say you must do this regardless of the evidence before you, regardless of how it does not serve the public interest, doesn't make sense to me.
As a committee, we should establish an extremely high bar, but not put ourselves in a position where we think we can foresee every possible outcome and every possible scenario. The best way of doing that is by saying there's a very small amount of room, but there has to be an overwhelming case for why this isn't used. As I said earlier, that not only serves the interest of the offender, but most importantly, it serves the public interest in ensuring a strong and effective registry.
That's what I'm speaking for, and I believe that furthers the interest of public safety.