I got your point, but it's wrong. The right interpretation of the law is under clause 9 in proposed subsection 4(3). If you go to proposed subsection 4(3) it says:
A person who has been convicted of an offence referred to in item 3 of Schedule 1 may apply for a record suspension if the Board is satisfied that
And then we get into these conditions that they weren't in a position of trust, they weren't in a position of authority, they were close in age to the victim, there was no threat of violence or intimidation. Then a record of suspension could be granted. So the parole board in fact then considers the circumstances and says, “Look, in this type of a situation the conditions have been met, the person can make the application, and we will determine on the facts whether it's applicable or not.”
So in the case of the voyeur, there is no automatic preclusion of applying for that suspension of record.