Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
There was another issue raised in our first session on this bill, about the disclosure of the reasons for referral to a review committee and the legal reasoning that was used to reach a conclusion in the review panel.
In the current practice—and it seems it would be the same under Bill C-9—the complainants are only given a summary of reasons. They're not actually given the legal reasoning. The argument was made that you only get to see those once you file, as a complainant, an action for judicial review. That is costly, but it also results in the automatic release of those to the person.
The suggestion was made that we, perhaps, should amend Bill C-9 to ensure that those reasons are released at an earlier stage. That might, in fact, prevent people from deciding to ask for judicial review. In order to see the reasons now, they actually have to ask for a judicial review.
I wonder if the Canadian Bar Association has any comment on that kind of paradox—I don't know what I would call it—that gets created there: that if you want a review, you can't see the reasons until you ask for the review.