Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Welcome to our committee. We appreciate your perspective and your input from the Canadian Bar Association.
From one of the previous panels we had, we understand.... All parties are supportive of this particular piece of legislation, recognizing that the Canadian Judicial Council has been calling for a more streamlined approach, and that other individuals within the process, including complainants, have recognized that the current approach is dated and cumbersome and there could be unnecessary delays.
When we look at the right of appeal of a decision, we see that there's a mechanism in the legislation to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, which seems like a pretty lofty first option of appeal. It was raised by two of our witnesses—and a third concurred on questioning—that it may be appropriate to have a right of appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal.
I'd like to get your thoughts on that in terms of the perception of justice and the rules of fundamental justice. I'm wondering about this idea that a governing body makes a decision and your recourse is an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Are we accepting that because it's judges who are on that panel? If it were another group of peers—if it were doctors, accountants or some other group of peers who were passing judgment on one's conduct—would we accept that the recourse for that individual was just to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada?
Could you make some comment on that? Also, did you have any thoughts on a right of appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal being injected into the process?