As imperfect as the existing access law was, there was a feeling that the commissioner was the arbiter of what happened. Even though the commissioner couldn't order public bodies to do things, Bill 29 expressly forbade him from doing certain things. For example, the clerk of the cabinet could declare a document a cabinet document, and the commissioner had no recourse to determine whether it was. It was the same thing with respect to solicitor-client privilege. Ultimately, when the court case proceeded, as Mr. Wells discussed, 80% of the documents for which solicitor-client privilege was being claimed as a protection didn't deal with solicitor-client privilege at all. As a result, there was this huge, if you would, deficit of faith in what this law was, emanating from Bill 29. There was a real perception that the commissioner, perhaps not having had the strongest legislative position prior to that, had an even weaker ability then to be able to ensure that public bodies were doing what they should have been doing, and that the commissioner had the right to actually investigate and determine what was being done.
On May 31st, 2016. See this statement in context.