My French isn't perfect, but I got enough.
I agree with some of the things Mr. Sullivan had to say in that we should really take heed of the lessons learned in Alberta and elsewhere where they've had this program. I did see the line in there that indicates it's only what has already been made public; I'm not quite sure exactly what that means. The concern I would have, and I'm not sure this legislation proposes that, is whether there's any way in which this information would directly earmark where people are or would locate them in the community. I don't think that's the purpose, as I understand it.
Of course, the Supreme Court of Canada, in another decision, would have had a problem with that, had the conclusion been that the giving of the first three digits of the postal code, the name, or photograph would have identified the location, it would have been a problem. The obvious problem would be that this would lead to a situation where the offender might not want to comply—through shame, humiliation, fear, and all these things—which could be counterproductive to a stable individual and therefore a higher risk to the public.
Those are just concerns I raise. I don't know if they'll be animated by this legislation, but I'd want to see what specifically they mean by this information being already disclosed.