I don't agree, and I said so in the document.
I was consulted a number of years ago when the British act was in creation under the then recently elected Labour government, and the first recommendation made was just that, that we should open up. Basically, at home, there are certain places you don't go. You don't go to your parents' bedroom, for instance. By analogy, if you want to have a frank, honest discussion, the Prime Minister, by the very oath the privy councillor makes, that they will give their honest and forthright opinion to him for better governance.... There is a contradiction there, whether it's going to be done with the eye of the camera or before a stenographer. All I would do is maybe reduce it from 20 years to 10 years. But we're fiddling there.
I think the exception is right. We need to have certain areas as a safe house. In this instance, the government, whatever colour it is and whatever the issue is, needs to be able to discuss without the risk of being in The Globe and Mail on the following day.