I understand that point. You've made it very eloquently and very consistently. What I would point out is that these judges who whistle-blowers would face in courts are the same kinds of judges they would face in a tribunal setting. These tribunals will be held out in the open for public scrutiny. People will be able to see whether they're fair or not. The same judges you want whistle-blowers to have access to in courts are going to be made available to them in the tribunals. It's a fairly revolutionary invention of this bill to give that kind of order power over public decisions inside the government to a group of judges on a tribunal, as opposed to having it in the hands of the political and bureaucratic bosses. I think it's a very serious step forward.
On the issue of access to information, we should clarify that no documents whatsoever will be exempt from access to information under this bill. All documents, every single document related to a prospective scandal, are accessible at the department. So you can make your ATI request to the department, just as you would have been able to without the presence of this bill. We have removed all exemptions that existed under the previous Bill C-11. Exemptions only exist for the commissioner's office during an investigation so that the investigation is not interrupted by constant ATIs and so the identities of the whistle-blowers are essentially protected in order to defend against reprisals.
Do you believe honestly that those kinds of exemptions to protect the identity of the whistle-blower and to protect the integrity of an investigation should not be in the bill?