That is an excellent question.
We live in a constitutional democracy, not a parliamentary democracy. A constitutional democracy dictates that your laws, as all of you know, have to be constitutional, and a constitutional imperative is that the judiciary has to be independent and cannot be subjected, especially, to government.
To your point, are we therefore encroaching on your democratic obligations? Again, that's where Canada shines. We balance well. You require comfort. We have an accountable judiciary. Let's think about it. We have a robust appeal process. We have a very robust—I chaired it for five years—judicial conduct process. Everything we say and do is on the record in court, and we—and Justice Kent can elaborate on this—are much more open and transparent about our educational offerings in the past two years.
I understand your point that it cuts both ways. We can't say we're so independent that we are going to subsume Parliament's obligation. Not at all. What we are saying is that, in a constitutional democracy, we need the appropriate balance, and our proposed changes strike that balance, I would respectfully submit, but Justice Kent can talk about what we view as openness.