I would like to make a few comments in response to my Bloc Québécois colleague's arguments.
The problem has nothing to do with the fact that information is disclosed before a case is filed. Rather, the problem is the fact that it would give future governments or federal or provincial institutions a tool to find out who received money and how much money was potentially spent to litigate a case. It's an access to justice issue, from my perspective.
For example, in the case of Montfort Hospital, which was in danger of closing, it would have disclosed how much it cost to retain all the lawyers who argued before the court, including Mr. Caza and the group of lawyers who represented Montfort Hospital. Had that happened, the lawyers' strategy would have been to extend the trial indefinitely in order to exhaust the funds of the parties involved. It is then a question of access to justice and the means by which it was accessed. Whether the information is disclosed before or after a case is filed is irrelevant, since it would still give future governments the tools to potentially curtail certain rights.
I agree that the University of Ottawa, for example, should be given a global envelope, but I am concerned about the idea of disclosing who received what. That's why you use a third party, in principle.