Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The discussion is very interesting.
What worries me is that bills are always presented as the panacea for all problems, but once passed, there is not much follow-up.
From the beginning, there is something that has been bothering me enormously. I remember the first interview I gave to a radio station in Quebec—which I am not going to name—after the Conservative government introduced Bill C-26. People felt that all sensitive-hearted people would oppose this bill, would play at being lawyers, and so on, although it had been introduced to protect our children.
I am worried that the bill that has been introduced aims to create a database to make information accessible to the public on persons who have been found guilty of sexual assaults against children and who are at high risk of committing sexual offences. My concern is not exactly the same as that of certain witnesses who are here. This has made me shudder from the beginning, because it means that someone will be back in society whereas we know, because it has just been determined, that he is at high risk of committing sexual offences. What is wrong with that picture? There is a problem somewhere.
The fact of knowing that offenders have been released and that they are at high risk of reoffending should help us all to sleep better, including previous and future victims. It seems to me that there is something wrong with that concept.
Is there someone among the witnesses who has thought about the criteria that will allow authorities to determine if a person is at high risk of committing a sexual offence? If there is a witness who is intelligent enough to help us provide guidelines to the government in that regard, we would appreciate it. According to Bill C-26, the governor in council will by regulation establish the criteria that will allow people to decide whether someone who was found guilty of a sexual offence against a child is at high risk of reoffending.
Ms. O'Sullivan, I would be tempted to throw that ball in your court, even though I am sure you do not want it. What should those criteria be? Should they not be established in advance, rather than leaving the whole topic open and saying that they will be established through regulations? Moreover, the context is such that there now seems to be a lot of overlapping legislation.
Not that long ago, we studied Bill S-2, which allows delegation through regulations. We may never see it again and we will suddenly realize that there is a regulation that establishes criteria and that we did not even know it.
Can someone suggest guidelines for these criteria? Is there someone among the witnesses who is concerned about the fact that a database will be created, while we know that an offender is being released who is at high risk of reoffending?