Yes, I am satisfied that the basic powers and protections available to the commissioner are the right ones. There are, as I say, a few points I've raised here that I think would improve the bill considerably and go back to issues that I and others have advocated for some time.
One of them is the issue of transparency, which covers the aspects of access to information that I've raised here. It's terribly important that the office in no way be seen as hiding information that can and should be made public. I think Bill C-2, in its present state, might give rise to that kind of accusation. I don't think it's required for this office, and I've specified why certain things could be changed.
The other aspect is the access of members of the public to the commissioner, which I think is very strong in Bill C-2. That's a very good statement of access, and also the issue of protecting contractors and grant recipients from reprisal. But again, there I think it would be better to go a step further and say those people ought also to have access, not just to the offence that is there, but also to the reprisal mechanism that is available to public servants. Otherwise you leave those people a little bit less protected, because they would have to convince the police to lay a charge. The charge would be essentially about a criminal offence and therefore subject to a criminal standard--