I've certainly taken the time to be with Mr. Reid to talk about his concerns. I think in many respects he thinks the existing blanket protections for certain sorts of information are sufficient and don't require new exemptions; the CBC is one example I raise. We certainly have agreed to work with him to hear any concerns he has, to look at what amendments might be brought forward to satisfy him.
I think in three areas there will not be agreement, at least with the government. One is a concrete, iron-clad guarantee for journalists that their sources are fully protected and not reviewable by him. Two, because we're going so far on the whistle-blower protections, I don't believe that if a charge is made against another public servant, if there's no basis in fact for it, in fact if it's false... that should not be made public; we should protect people's reputations and their careers. Third, we've accepted a recommendation from the accounting community, and I believe the Auditor General as well, in order to protect draft audit documents before the main audit report comes out. In some respects, deputy ministers would be able to request a draft copy of the Auditor General's report before she even goes to Parliament, as one example. Those are three areas where we have significant disagreements with him.
As for the rest of his concerns, I've said we're prepared to work with him and see if we can't satisfy his concerns. He obviously has a significant amount of expertise.
I do find it problematic, because one day he says we're going too far, we're radical, and the next he says the exact opposite.