Thank you very much, Mr. Jean, for your question.
I'd also like to thank you for your help with my private member's bill. You've been a strong advocate for freedom of expression in our country. It is appreciated by our ridings.
Mr. Jean and I are in neighbouring ridings, so people in northern Alberta get Brian and Brian, whether they like it or not.
At the end of the day, you raise an excellent point. There are actually a couple of points in there. It's not only about the extensive amount of judicial training you must have to become a judge in our country, the extensive amount of training to work within the Criminal Code and the criminal justice system in Canada, and how it's obviously not as extensive for this quasi-judicial body. I think the most pertinent point you raise is the fact that this is a quasi-judicial body.
This is not a body that is open and transparent. This is not a body that follows the rules of evidence we have and that exist in the court system in Canada. It is very closed. I've pointed out that intent is not an allowable defence. Truth—even if what you're saying is actually true—is not an allowable defence.
Also, you do not have the right to an attorney. That's something I've always really taken umbrage at in the legislation. It's like putting an amateur hockey player who plays backyard hockey up against a team of professional hockey players every day and then being surprised that the professionals win every game. It simply is not fair. That's not how our court system, as you rightfully pointed out, operates in our great country.
I agree with you in principle on both of those points. It looks like you want to ask me another question, so I'll cut it short.