In response to your first question, the work of judges involves issues of criminal conviction and sentencing fraught with emotion, such as custody of children, disputes over wills and estates, and bankruptcy matters, to give a few examples. As I stated in my opening remarks, judges adjudicate disputes, so by definition, at the end of the process, one party is dissatisfied. I think that there is a very real risk of mischievous use of information if it is tied to named, individual judges.
I'm here completing my answer to Madam Fortier. I had time to talk to the accountability objective of the act, but I believe the transparency objective of the act can be attained by the disclosure of expense information on a per-expense category and per-court basis. Where the problem lies is in tying individual judges to individual expenses in a publication regime where you have too much and at the same time too little information. It's too much because you have expenses tied to individual judges, but it's too little because the public will be unaware of the reasons a given judge has incurred more expenses than the average or more than his colleague of the same court.
Fundamentally, I would submit to you that this regime is misconceived as it applies to judges, because I have given at least three reasons that I believe judges stand in a different position.