There are a lot of things that could be improved in the Access to Information Act. Section 21 is often invoked; it deals with the advice and recommendations of public servants. It is often used in a somewhat abusive way, according to our office and our investigations. Other acts have provisions that provide for a list to exclude certain information, such as facts and statistics. We'd like to draw a comparison with those other acts to help the people who enforce the Access to Information Act to better respect the intent behind that section.
Of course, when we talk about judicial or de novo review, there are important things to know. The Office of the Information Commissioner can currently act as a party in a hearing before the Federal Court. I think it's important to maintain that, because complainants often aren't represented and don't see the file. We see the file when we conduct an investigation. It's important for the Office of the Information Commissioner to retain that power and to be able to represent access-related interests, not to mention the complainant's interests, and to defend the application of the Access to Information Act, even if a file goes before the Federal Court. It's particular.