The interpretation as described by the member is true. That's how the act is interpreted and now stands. It's not entirely inconsistent with the history of the position of public office holders, like ministers and parliamentary secretaries. It does recognize the fact that the people we're talking about, who may be the recipients of letters or recommendations, are themselves people who are appointed by cabinet.
There is a question whether it's appropriate for a cabinet minister who may be in a different portfolio nonetheless to write a letter to somebody who is a cabinet appointee or a public officer where that's appropriate.
The second point to be made is that as our system of justice has evolved and become more complex, we have over decades and centuries less and less being decided by judges and more and more legal matters being decided by independent tribunals, such as the CRTC, the Canada Industrial Relations Board, etc. In fact, it's probably safe to say that more legal decisions are made by tribunals and administrative agencies than by the courts.
If one would not accept a minister of the crown writing to a judge, is it any different for a minister of the crown to write to a CRTC commissioner who has the same type of statutory power of decision?
The CBA has not recommended any changes to the act in this respect, and I think it's safe to say it's because we believe the act is appropriate in this respect for some of the historic reasons I've outlined.