Quite frankly, I read the minister's evidence, and I must say with respect to the minister—and I don't mean any disrespect—that I don't know how he associates the two recommendations, 4 and 11. I see them as being quite different.
Recommendation 4, in my mind, was to grant the commissioner discretion to investigate, to deal with a series of issues—which I identified for the committee as being from the frequent user to the frivolous and the vexatious—to establish a system of triage that would deal with larger public interests, and do it in a very transparent way. It seems to me that if you've delegated to an officer of the House the authority to determine and make recommendations on the rights of Canadians under the act, it's a small step to give them that discretion.
In terms of direct access to the courts, that's what we heard from many in our consultations. And in that particular case, I would go along the lines of what you heard from the Canadian Bar Association, which said this recommendation would allow those who have the cash to go to court—a company, a lobbyist, or whoever--and they just want to get at it. And it would still preserve the access for the average Canadian, who must come to me for a complaint, and on his or her behalf I will take it to the court.
So I see it as win-win all round and not a compromise of one or the other.