A criminal record is a significant consequence. So the question is, what should generate that significant consequence and what should not? I think that's what's behind Mr. Harris's amendment. And there is good sense to that.
I think what Mr. Hawn is saying is that the amendment as it reads now means the consequence would be that certain offences that should carry a criminal record might not carry a criminal record. And that makes sense.
I'm wondering whether we shouldn't put the matter aside and ask Mr. Hawn or the JAG to come back to the next meeting with some suggestions about what wording could give us serious consequences for serious actions, and less serious consequences for less serious actions.