Thank you.
I note your examples. I think there are some assumptions in them that the committee needs to consider.
You're a lawyer with undoubtedly a fair bit of experience in the criminal courts. I was a prosecutor for a time. In all the years I've prosecuted, I can honestly say that I would never have proceeded on a hybrid offence by way of an indictable offence if there was the option of going summary on a first offence, unless there were horribly aggravating circumstances. So I think the scenario you're putting forward is very remote and probably not possible. In my experience, I can't think of a case where a prosecutor would have proceeded by way of an indictment in that, shall I say, Jean Valjean kind of situation.
I think the balance we have struck here is a fair one; we have given a certain amount of discretion. The 10-year period would not apply in situations where the crown proceeds by way of a summary conviction offence, even though the person, for example, would have had to give his fingerprints. As I understand it, in the hybrid situation, you still have to provide fingerprints.