I understand.
I'd like to talk a bit about Bill C‑27. It was put on hold for two weeks so we could have a few meetings and conversations.
I've said many times, both publicly and privately, that the talks have stalled over the new tribunal. I reread the transcripts of the meetings that were held. Department officials came before the committee and said that the new tribunal was needed. One of the reasons they gave was that the Privacy Commissioner lost 70% of the cases that were heard by the Federal Court.
However, we learned things, somewhat informally, about the cases in question. The information the committee heard, which undermined the commissioner's credibility, was based on seven cases. In the four cases that the commissioner lost, the court's decisions had to do with jurisdiction, not merit.
Can you comment on that? Can you give us more information on the assertion that the commissioner isn't very successful in cases that go before the Federal Court, in other words, that the commissioner is not doing a good job?
Can you tell us exactly what calculations the department did to arrive at that assertion?
I'm having trouble understanding how come department officials, and sometimes the minister, indirectly, seem to want to undermine the credibility of an organization seen as important.