Upstairs, I guess.
I had one incident, Mr. Opitz, where I handed off a file because, to my astonishment, a member who had asked me to express an opinion told the press—not me, but the press—that he had an apprehension of bias if I were to deal with it, so I passed that off to Commissioner Gerrand from Saskatchewan, who dealt with it. That's an easy one. It's obvious.
I think the member or the requester, because it applies equally to members of the public, is entitled to a fulsome explanation of a decision, which we release to the clerk who sets it before the Legislative Assembly. We release it publicly when the member releases it, if the member does, and with the member's consent otherwise. So people have an opportunity to read it and ask whether this person is living in a dream world, whether he is some kind of ideologue that no one should have to suffer, if he is being too soft in all of the circumstances.
What you see is what you get. Sure, it's perhaps a long way between appointment dates, but you get a reputation. I haven't been attacked actually for any of the decisions I have rendered—at least not openly. No doubt there have been disappointed people in some cases. I'm not aware...except in Alberta, frankly, where within the recent past the commissioner there was attacked by the press and by members of the House and the public was left to come to its own judgment based on the decision.
I share your concern. I'm alive to it. If we were simply putting up a sign that said yes or no, that would be one thing, but if you're going to give reasons, as you must, then people can decide whether you're meeting the objective test or whether you are not.