Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to present our perspective on it. First of all, we are not proposing any amendments. Furthermore, we agree with many, if not the vast majority, of the points that have been made today.
However, the amendment proposed by my colleague, Mr. Davies, brings an interesting dimension to this. In the amendment, which I'm reading in French and which must be the same in English, uses the expression “grossly disproportionate”.
It includes the concept of reverse onus and automatic registration. It would be up to the accused to establish that registration would have a grossly disproportionate effect. The standard of proof is extremely high.
It seems to me, therefore, that the most serious cases, as well as the vast majority of cases, would not pass the test of reversal of automatic registration.
On the other hand, this amendment does make other things possible. I'd like to give you an example to demonstrate the need to consider this possibility. Imagine a case where an 18-year-old youth expose himself to a 15- or 16-year-old-girl. It is generally acknowledged that, between 16 and 18, the age difference is minimal. However, when you are 18, you are a person of full age and are therefore subject to the Criminal Code.
Supposing these young people meet at a party and one of them exposes himself to some young girls in a very specific context. Consider this. These are our young people. It could be our daughter, our child. Would we be in favour of our child's name being listed for the rest of his life in a sex offender registry? Furthermore, it could also have been a case of mutual consent.
As we know, the current registry in the U.S. is a disaster. It contains all kinds of information, for completely minor offences.
In addition, the standard of proof is so high that the judge must be given some discretion to exercise his own judgment. After all, if you're a judge, you are capable of using your own common sense in assessing the situation. I think this is a reasonable amendment because it is neither too open-ended, nor too lax; it is still quite strict.
The requirement to show a grossly disproportionate effect sets the bar very high. This would prevent people from abusing the system, and it reflects the kind of balance we should be seeking to achieve whenever legislation is being drafted.
Furthermore, the second part of the amendment provides for a review or assessment—essentially a report that assesses the new provision. That is absolutely critical, because it is possible that, two or three years from now, the legislation will be struck down.
It is important to remember that, as well as the fact that we may realize that this provision--