I hear what you're saying, but this says “would not have a negative impact on the safety of the public”. I know what the promoter of the bill said about providing information to victims and the need to do it, and I know that the whole thrust of the legislation was to see that this information was basically to be made available.
Now what I'm finding, with the government amendments, is that much of that is all smoke and mirrors. It comes down to a very discretionary position, in this case based on the chairman's opinion, as to whether that information will be made public or not.
This comes to my point on private members' bills. We're right back to where we started. The private member's bill has such and such an intent, but it now is being amended downward by the government so that the information being provided is really discretionary, according to the viewpoint of somebody within the system.