I am happy to answer questions about transparency.
In my opinion, it is a question of striking a fair balance. There are three factors.
First, we have to share as much information as possible about the management of the program and we have to provide all the information we can.
Second, a balance has to be struck between that consideration and the rights established by the Supreme Court of Canada that allow social assistance recipients to maintain a certain degree of confidentiality in bringing their case, which preserves their ability to carry it through. In my opinion, that right, or privilege, should apply equally to people who have financial needs. We do not ask other people how they are paying to have their litigation resolved.
The third part of the triangle of transparency is the independence of the program. We have to be able to preserve the integrity and decision-making independence of the CCP, beyond the reach of public or political pressure. That is why the CCP has been administered by a third party. The independence of the program is strengthened when the expert panels are able to select the cases to be funded based solely on the eligibility criteria.
In my opinion, questioning their decisions does not respect either their expertise or their independence. We should note that there are seven members on each of the panels. That represents a diversity of views.
This brings me to Mr. Serré's question about how we choose the cases described as being of national significance: the test cases. That is really a question of expertise. It is necessary to know where a case falls within the case law and how it may clarify or further rights. I think it works very well because those decisions are assigned to experts.